Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH:

Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table,—Reportfrom one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords].

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Mid Southern Utility Bill [Lords].

Plympton St. Mary Rural District

Council Bill [Lords].

Reigate Corporation Bill [Lords].

Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Building Industry

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will amend the regulation whereby a building contractor or his son or brother when released under Class B may be directed by the employment exchange to a firm other than his own.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) on 11th October, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. York: In view of the fact that it is the usual practice not to send these men away from their home towns, does the Minister think that it is justifiable that these men released under Class B should be directed to work for a rival firm?

Mr. Isaacs: I would prefer not to add to the answer which I have given. If the hon. Member will look at that, and let me have any further information, I will be glad to have it.

Commander Shawcross: asked the Minister of Labour approximately how many men would be eligible for immediate release under Class B in the categories of building and civil engineering and industries ancillary thereto, if Class B releases were not restricted to 10 per cent. of Class A releases; and if he will consider removing or modifying such restriction in respect of such category.

Mr. Isaacs: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part, the answer is in the negative. The Government has repeatedly stated its intention to maintain the principle of release by age and length of service, subject to the provision for limited release in Class B, which has been accepted by men and women in the Services as fair and reasonable.

Commander Shawcross: Is the Minister aware that according to a careful calculation made by the present Minister of Works, and explained to this House on 7th December last, only one in ten ex-Service families will be found housing accommodation within two years after the-end of the war? In view of that does he not consider that the majority of men in the Forces would welcome the early release of everyone who could help in building houses, even if it meant prolonging the service of others?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, that is not the impression we are getting from the communications we are receiving. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that with the demobilisation of 1,500,000 men by the end of this year there will be considerable labour augmentation generally in industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether building operatives in the Middle and Far East are


considered for Class B releases equally with those stationed nearer home.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend publish comparative figures to illustrate his reply, as the men in the Far East are a little sceptical about it?

Mr. Isaacs: I hesitate to make any more promises, but I will look into it.

National Fire Service

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give reconsideration to the position of men who, after four years' service or more in the N.F.S., have been called up for service in the Army, placed in high demobilisation groups and not permitted to count any of their N.F.S. service so far as Army pay rates are concerned.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him to a similar Question on 9th October.

Mr. Channon: Does not the Minister think that these men, in view of their long service, are being rather unfairly treated?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Norman Bower: Is it not a fact that these men when they were in the N.F.S. were paid on a Service rather than on an industrial basis, and, therefore, surely it is only right that their service in the N.F.S. should be taken into consideration for the purpose of long service pay?

Mr. Isaacs: I think that point is dealt with in the answer which I gave previously, to which I have referred.

One-Man Businesses

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds owners of one-man businesses, who are now serving in the Forces, can obtain release; and whether such release is temporary or final.

Mr. Isaacs: There is no provision for the early release of owners of one-man businesses as such. These cases are usually based on considerations of a personal nature and are, therefore, dealt with by the Service Departments under

the arrangements for compassionate release. Release on compassionate grounds may be for a definite or an indefinite period, according to circumstances.

Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that there is a general impression that owners of one-man businesses who have served three years in the Forces and who have compassionate grounds now get released; and has there in fact been any alteration at all in the treatment of these cases?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as the treatment of compassionate cases is concerned, that is a matter for the respective Services and not the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the Minister consider the advisability of putting this matter on a specific, clear basis which everybody can understand, laying down the definite conditions on which owners of one-man businesses may be released?

Mr. Isaacs: Quite definitely we will do that.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that his statement this afternoon appears to conflict with the official statement issued by his Ministry a few weeks-ago on which, I suppose, we must all of us have had innumerable inquiries? Will he, at an early date, make a clear statement on this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot recall the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I think there is a clear case made out for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will immediately see about getting out a statement on the matter.

Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a wider interpretation, if possible, to the term "compassionate leave?" It has been very narrowly interpreted by the Services, and I think we might have a wider interpretation with regard to men in this class.

Mr. Isaacs: This is not a matter for the Ministry of Labour, but I will make contact with the Service Ministers on the matter.

Agricultural Workers

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is pre-


pared to consider placing former agricultural workers now in the Forces in Class B for release.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) on 9th October, a copy of which I am sending him.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister give the House some assurance that the employment of prisoner-of-war labour for agriculture will be considered before such time as these prisoners of war finally disappear? Is he aware that the present situation is extremely unsatisfactory for the man who wants to come back to agriculture, and who does not know how soon his labour is going to be really useful in view of the prisoner-of-war situation?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather wide of the original Question, but we are in almost daily contact with the Minister of Agriculture on this question of labour supply.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that agricultural executive committees inform farmers now that they may apply, and send them special forms to apply, for the release of agricultural workers, which appears to conflict with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made?

Mr. Isaacs: Conflict with this statement or the other one?

Mr. Stewart: With both, if you like.

Release Groups

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Labour how many men have been released from the Forces under Class C since 1st September, 1945; and will he give the figures of the three Services.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of men released in Class C between 1st September and 30th September is as follows:—

Army
3,202


R.A.F 
37


Royal Navy
33



(for the period 1st September to 12th October)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, having regard to the numerical strength of the three Services, why they should apparently be following entirely different practices in that matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid I cannot answer for practices in the Services.

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Labour if he will agree that in future the group number of men in the Services who have been granted temporary release will not be affected by such release.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) in answer to a similar question on 9th October, a copy of which I am sending him.

Royal Air Force

Mr. Ayles: asked the Minister of Labour why, in his new demobilisation proposals, in view of the retention of the principle of age and service, R.A.F. releases are three groups behind the Army and 17 groups behind the Navy.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Labour whether the men to be released from each of the three Services will be the same percentage of the total strength of those in the Navy, Army and Air Force, or on what basis the allocations were made; and will he make it clear to R.A.F. personnel why the group releases of the Navy and Army are higher in group numbers than that of the R.A.F.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made on this subject by the Under-Secretary of State for Air in the Debate on the Adjournment on Friday, 12th October.

Mr. Ayles: Is the Minister aware that there is widely spread dissatisfaction with regard to the dates of demobilisation; and will he see that the fullest possible information is given to these men, in order that not only they but their relatives may understand the reason for this delay in demobilisation?

Mr. Isaacs: I did not hear the Debate, but I was under the impression that that information was given by the Under-Secretary of State for Air on Friday last.

Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. Friend see that that informative speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Air is made known to the R.A.F. personnel concerned?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the Minister aware that anyone reading that speech, especially men in the R.A.F., will remain thoroughly dissatisfied?

Mr. Sunderland: Could the Minister have copies of that statement printed, and make those copies available for Members for use in their correspondence?

Mr. Isaacs: I seem to be full of promises this afternoon, but I promise to look into that. I am aware, as a Member of Parliament as distinct from a Minister, of the communications we are getting. I will confer with the Departments concerned to see if we cannot get some informative statement published in Hansard or circulated in some other way.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In view of the large increase in our correspondence from these disillusioned men in the R.A.F. and their wives, will the Minister approach the Chancellor with a view to giving us a subsidy to deal with this correspondence?

Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. Friend answer the first part of my Question?

Mr. Isaacs: I referred my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Minister of Labour if he will mitigate the disparity in the rate of release as between the three Services by increasing the proportion of recruits allocated to the R.A.F. and by remustering into the R.A.F. a proportion of Army and Navy personnel in late release groups.

Mr. Isaacs: In the allocation of manpower to meet the requirements of the three Services, such considerations as those mentioned by the hon. Member have been taken into account. There is, however, a limit to the extent to which releases can be accelerated by the call up or transfer of inexperienced men.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Does that answer mean that men from the other Services are being remustered in the R.A.F.?

Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Levy: Is there a larger proportion in the intake into the R.A.F. than to the other Services?

Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid I cannot answer that. If my hon. Friend will put that question down I will get the information.

Mr. Levy: Shall I put down the same question?

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the difficulties at present, which prevent the personnel of the R.A.F. from getting their releases according to their groups at the same time or speed as the other Services; and if he will at once consult with his colleagues in order to give to all men in the Forces who are being prevented from release at the time that age and service applies in general, some recompense financially or otherwise, because of the hardship they are suffering.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 9th October to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles), a copy of which I am sending him.

Architectural Students

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the shortage of architects and assistants required for the housing shortage, he will consider releasing architectural students on the same terms as those released for the arts and theology.

Mr. Isaacs: Students holding scholarships for the purpose of taking an architectural course at a university may start such courses this year on the same conditions as students holding Arts scholarships.

South American Volunteers

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange for South American volunteers with dual nationality, serving in the British Forces, to be classified as Class B for release if either our ambassador or the ambassador of a South American country in Great Britain certify that they are required for work essential either to the South American country or to British trade with that country.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. If in any particular case the services of a South American volunteer serving in His Majesty's Forces are regarded as essential for urgent work of reconstruction, it is open to his employer or, if he has been in business on his own account, to the man himself, to apply through the appropriate Government Department in this country for his release as an individual specialist in Class B.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: In view of the fact that there are some 1,366 men and about 211 women who could be valuable ambassadors for us abroad, could the right hon. Gentleman indicate in more detail how these people can get out to take up foreign businesses abroad?

Mr. Isaacs: I will look into the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised. I am not sure that it is covered by the Question, but I will examine it.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great delay which is caused, for instance, by having to send telegrams?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think any difficulty is put in the way by the Ministry of Labour.

Transferred Service Personnel

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the position in regard to demobilisation of men indefinitely released from the Forces for transfer to industry; and whether it is still necessary to require them to remain in their present employment.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Balham and Tooting (Captain R. Adams) on 11th October, a copy of which I am sending him.

Export Trade

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that sufficient numbers of men and women are being released from the services for employment in the trades and industries vital to our export markets.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to my comprehensive statement of 2nd October, a copy of which I am sending him, in which I explained that the numbers of men and women being released from the Forces are the maximum possible in the present circumstances.

Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if these releases are not accelerated we shall be gravely behind with our exports and we shall miss the boat?

Mr. Isaacs: We hope to be able to maintain the acceleration which has been promised up to the end of the year, and, while we cannot have all that we require,

we think there will be a general easement of the position.

Industrial Replacement

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that young men called up out of industry are being replaced by the release of men from the services.

Mr. Isaacs: The calling up of men from industry cannot, of course, be dependent upon individual replacement by men released from the Forces; but the number of young men being called up is very much smaller than the number of men being released.

Mr. Jennings: Is the Minister not aware of the great dislocation caused particularly in a place like Sheffield, where there are many complaints that the calling up of young men is hindering production?

Mr. Isaacs: The process must continue to some extent because the young men must go into the Forces to take the places of the older men who are being released.

Merchant Navy Service

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will permit Merchant Navy Service rendered prior to Army Service to count in defining a man's age and Service group number.

Mr. Isaacs: Service in the Merchant Navy since 3rd September, 1939, is taken into account in determining the release group numbers of members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Callaghan: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, which, of course, does no more than bare justice to the Merchant Navy, may I ask whether he can give me an assurance that there are no classes left out of this group?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman means. If he will let me know about it I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWISS AND BRITISH NATIONALS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Labour how many Swiss citizens are now resident in the United Kingdom; how many of them are doing paid work; and whether he can give the equivalent figures for British residents in Switzerland.

Mr. Isaacs: In reply to the first part of the Question, I understand from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, that approximately 6,700 Swiss citizens are regarded as resident in the United Kingdom. Statistics as to the number doing paid work are not available. As regards the last part of the Question, I am advised by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that there are in Switzerland registered at British Consulates 2,322 British subjects of whom 551 are doing paid work. It may be assumed that the number of British subjects not registered at the Consulates is negligible.

Mr. Bartlett: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the restrictions imposed on British subjects in Switzerland, doing paid or unpaid work, are very strict indeed, and, in view of the large number of Swiss people working in this country, would he consult with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to see whether some approach cannot be made to the Swiss Government on this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY (TRANSFERS)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men are being transferred to building trades from industries which provide equipment for the building trade, thereby retarding instead of speeding up the building of houses; and if he will re-examine the priorities for men engaged in industries essential to the building of houses.

Mr. Isaacs: In general, the arrangements for the return of ex-building trade and civil engineering workers to their former industries provide for their remaining on the manufacture of housing materials where their services would be more valuable on such work, and if my hon. Friend would let me have particulars of any cases where this practice does not seem to have been followed I would be glad to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTED MINEWORKERS (RELEASE)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour whether any change is contemplated in the conditions governing the release of men directed to work in the coalmining industry.

Mr. Isaacs: I hope to make a statement shortly on the whole question of labour controls.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEAMEN'S WELFARE (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Bowen: asked the Minister of Labour if he proposes to take any action to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Seamen's Welfare in Ports.

Mr. Isaacs: The recommendations are under the active consideration of my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport and myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES COMMISSION (REPORT)

Sir Stanley Holmes: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to give effect to the recommendations made by the Catering Wages Commission in its Report dated 20th November last and, in particular, to those affecting the special problems in the evacuation areas.

Mr. Isaacs: The report referred to deals with a wide range of subjects for which various Departments are responsible, and questions regarding individual recommendaations in the Report would require to be addressed to the Minister concerned with particular matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNOFFICIAL TRADE DISPUTES

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost in the last two months by unofficial trade disputes.

Mr. Isaacs: On the basis of such information as is available in my Department, the aggregate number of man-days lost during August and September in stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes is estimated at about 220,000. The corresponding figures for the period since the end of September are not yet available. While the information available does not permit a precise distinction to be made between official and unofficial trade disputes, practically all of the man-days lost arise from unofficial stoppages.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour the number of man-hours lost from January, 1945, to the latest available date in unofficial stoppages on British railways, docks, trams and


omnibus services; and what action does he propose to take to put an end to this type of action.

Mr. Isaacs: On the basis of such information as is available in my Department, the aggregate number of man-days lost, from the beginning of this year up to the end of September, in stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes in the railway, dock, tramway and omnibus services in Great Britain, is estimated at about 360,000. There has also been a further loss of working time at the docks during the first two weeks of the present month, but statistics as to the number of man-days lost during that period are not yet available. The information available does not permit a distinction to be made between official and unofficial trade disputes. As regards the second part of the Question, it is my policy to encourage the settlement of disputes by constitutional means.

Sir W. Smithers: In the national interest, will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the men concerned the facts and figures in simple form to show them the grave position of our export trade, the danger of inflation and the peril of the country as a consequence of these men's folly?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think that reading an economics paper to men on strike will help them to go back to work.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL DISTRIBUTION (LABOUR FORCE)

Mr. Tom Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that sufficient labour will be available to coal merchants and depots to ensure an equitable distribution of coal for domestic consumption during the coming winter.

Mr. Isaacs: It will be difficult to supply sufficient civilian labour for coal distribution this winter, but my Department is examining, in consultation with the other Departments concerned, the possibility of supplementing the civilian labour force with prisoners-of-war labour and members of the Forces.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of getting back some of the road haulage contractors who specialise in this kind of

work from the Forces, instead of relying so much on prisoners of war?

Mr. Isaacs: The trouble is that there always seem to be some arguments for some special class to I have special preference for release from the Forces, and any attempt to deal with the matter in that way, makes another inroad into the age and service demobilisation scheme.

Mr. Driberg: Will the Minister bear specially in mind the needs of rural areas where neither gas nor electricity is laid on?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly.

Mr. Murray: Will he also bear in mind that many employment exchanges to-day have men signing on who could very well do this particular work rather than prisoners of war?

Mr. Isaacs: If the unemployed men were in the locality where the labour shortage on this kind of job arises, we should be very glad to use them, but they are not always in the same locality.

Oral Answers to Questions — REDIRECTED SERVICE PERSONNEL (REINSTATEMENT)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Service men and women discharged before August, 1944, and re-directed to war work have no rights of reinstatement to their pre-war job; and will he take steps to remedy this situation in view of the fact that it affects over 400,000 persons.

Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend appears to have been misinformed in this matter. As the explanation is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

The Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944, provides that war service can be continued by the performance of civilian work in consequence of a direction or written request made by me or on my behalf. Furthermore, under Section 13 (1) of the Act, where the war service of a person ended within the period 1st February, 1944, to 31st July, 1944, both dates inclusive, it is treated as having ended on 1st August, 1944, the date when the Act came into force. Such persons


could therefore exercise any rights they had to reinstatement on or immediately after 1st August.

Accordingly, persons whose war service ended before 1st February, 1944, may have rights under the Act if their war service was continued beyond that date by direction or written request in the way I have described. If their war service was not so continued they may have had rights to reinstatement under earlier Acts which they could have exercised when their war service ended.

Note.—The earlier Acts which gave rights of reinstatement in their pre-Service employment to persons called up or called out for service with the Armed Forces were the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act, the Military Training Act, and the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, all passed in 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE

Tradesmen

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consult with the Service Ministers with a view to ensuring that men newly called up into the Forces are directed, so far as possible, into those trades in which men due for release are being held back.

Mr. Isaacs: This is a Service matter, but I understand that the procedure suggested by my hon. Friend is already in operation.

Industrial Workers

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women by age groups, who were previously employed in industry, have been conscripted to each of the three Services, respectively, apart from the normal call-up of youths of 18 years, during each month of 1945 up to September; and how many, by age groups, it is intended to call up in the last three months of this year.

Mr. Isaacs: The detailed information desired by the hon. Member is not available. It is, however, estimated that, apart from youths of 18, and students, there were called up from industry under the National Service Acts during the first nine months of 1945 about 42,000 men. For the last three months of the year it is estimated that the corresponding figure

will be about 32,000. No women have been called up under the National Service Acts during 1945.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether due distinction is being made between skilled and unskilled men and women, and will he assure the House that the minimum number of skilled people are being called up from industry so far as possible, while the maximum number of unskilled people are being called up, with a view to speeding up demobilisation as fast as possible?

Mr. Isaacs: All relevant circumstances are taken into consideration, but as one of the so-called unskilled workers I do not think that all the burden of the country should be borne by the so-called unskilled labourer.

Toolmakers

Mr. Scollan: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the importance of engineering toolmaking to all industries in the nation, he will consider deferring, for two years, the call-up of young toolmakers and skilled technicians engaged in this section of industry.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the difficulties which are being caused in the engineering industry by the call-up for the Forces of skilled toolmakers; and whether, in view of the importance of retooling for peace production and the export trade, he will reconsider the present policy.

Mr. Isaacs: The call-up of men from the engineering industry must proceed if the programmes of release from and intake to the Forces are to be maintained. In view of the present labour shortage the call-up may cause some difficulty to employers both in the engineering: industry and elsewhere, but every effort will be made to reduce these to the minimum particularly as regards highly skilled men who are needed for the re-establishment of our vital civilian industries.

Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the engineering toolmaking industry must not be confused with the engineering industry in general, and that it is the basic foundation of the whole of our industries? Is he also aware that numerous industries in the country to-day are depending on that section to supply them with the necessary tools to make machinery?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I can inform my hon. Friend that toolmakers who were born before 1923 and who are engaged upon important work are not being called up.

Mr. Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the policy of the Government is to widen existing bottlenecks, and not create fresh ones?

Mr. Isaacs: That is the policy.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these toolmakers cannot be replaced by men returning from the Forces, and that if he takes these men away he will cause a great deal of engineering unemployment?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the total number of conscientious objectors, men and women respectively, who have been registered under the Acts to the end of September, 1945; how many have already been released from their obligations of service; and if they are being released under similar conditions of groups, based on age and length of service, as the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many have been released, as that is only just one figure, and under what conditions?

Mr. Isaacs: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the statement, which I think contains the figures he wants.

Following is the statement:

The latest date for which exact figures are available is 30th June, 1945. At that date, a total of 46,988 men and 909 women had been ordered by Tribunals to be registered as conscientious objectors. 3,577 men and 102 women were registered unconditionally, 28,720 men and 777 women were registered on the condition that they undertook some form of civil work, and 14,691 men and 30 women were registered for non-combatant military service. A number of these persons have renounced their conscientious objection since they were registered, and at present

about 25,000 men and 700 women are registered on conditions. Conditionally registered conscientious objectors are under a statutory obligation to carry out work specified by the Tribunals until the end of the present emergency. I am examining the possibility of introducing a release scheme for conscientious objectors, based on the principles of age and length of time conditionally registered, and I hope to be in a position to make a further statement on the subject at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR SUPPLY INSPECTORATE

Mr. George Porter: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the good work done by the appointment of labour supply inspectors during the war, it is the intention of his Ministry to continue their employment as a definite section of normal administration.

Mr. Medland: asked the Minister of Labour if it is proposed to incorporate the Labour Supply Inspectorate into the permanent structure of his Ministry; to what extent the discharge of these technical officers is left in the hands of regional controllers without consultation with the representatives of these men; and if he is aware that 46 inspectors have already taken appointments in industry owing to the uncertainty of their position.

Mr. Isaacs: Labour supply inspectors made a valuable contribution to the wartime mobilisation of labour and discussions are now taking place on the nature and extent of the duties they could usefully undertake in the post-war period. The general question of discharge on redundancy of labour supply inspectors has been discussed nationally with the representative association, and an order of discharge agreed. A fall in the volume of work has made it necessary to terminate the appointments of a few inspectors and notices have been issued by Regional Controllers on the basis of the agreement reached. I am aware that inspectors resign from time to time, but the rate of resignation has shown no marked increase over recent months.

Mr. Porter: Am I entitled to assume that apart from those who are being discharged or have left the job, there is some reason for those who are left to feel that they are assured of a job in the future?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a reasonable assumption.

Major Guy Lloyd: What percentage of these labour supply inspectors are ex-officials of trade unions?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say without notice, but that would not make them any the worse for their job.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS)

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and how many women trade unionists there are in the country; and how many of these are paying the political levy.

Mr. Isaacs: The statistics do not distinguish between men and women, and precise information as to the present total membership of all trade unions is not available. The total membership of all registered trade unions in 1943, however, was 6,838,781, and it is estimated that the Unions having political funds had at that time approximately 5,900,000 members, of whom some 2,525,000 contributed to such funds. The total membership of unregistered trade unions is not reported to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but the number of members of such Unions who contributed to political funds in 1943 was 515,502.

Sir T. Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many contribute willingly?

Mr. Isaacs: All of them who contribute.

Major Guy Lloyd: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his answer is not one of the main reasons for the introduction of the Trades Disputes Act Bill?

Mr. Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend tell us, if he can, how many employers of labour contribute to the political funds of the Conservative Party?

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS INDUSTRY (EX-NAVAL PERSONNEL)

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour if the men who were released from the Royal Navy to work in the gas industry, and who have now completed six months' continuous service in such work, are now free from any direction by his Ministry.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir; but the position of these men and others similarly situated is at present under consideration and I hope shortly to make an announcement on the subject.

Captain Gammans: If these men were released under Class B, would it not be right to say that after six months they would be free from all direction, and would the right hon. Gentleman say why there should be any reason for differentiating against this particular section of industry?

Mr. Isaacs: That is not quite accurate. They would be free after six months if their period of discharge came before the end of those six months. If their period of discharge was beyond six months they would have to go beyond that period of discharge at least.

Captain Gammans: Do I understand that the Minister is looking into this question? I am sure he realises the great amount of dissatisfaction which exists among these men.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. We are looking into the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (LOCAL RESIDENTS)

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the practice for the Employment Exchange to fill vacancies for employment in new or old industries in areas over which it has control from the persons unemployed in that area, and afterwards to draw from pools of unemployment existing in other areas; and what opportunities, when no more labour is required, will there be for obtaining employment in the case of those persons still unemployed in areas where no new industries will or can be established.

Mr. Isaacs: The arrangements for filling vacancies are not as rigid as the Question would suggest. As indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 11th October, when vacancies are notified to Employment Exchanges it is the normal practice to consider first whether there are persons suitable for submission to the employer among those on the local unemployed register. There are comprehensive and flexible arrangements for information about the vacancies notified at one exchange which cannot readily be filled, to be brought to the notice of other


exchanges, either locally or over wider areas, including, where appropriate, the country as a whole. As regards the last part of the Question, the Employment Exchanges have many demands for labour at present which cannot be filled.

Mr. Daggar: Is it not obvious that men unemployed in areas where there are no new industries will be at a disadvantage when compared with men who are unemployed in areas where factories have been established?

Mr. Isaacs: Until we get industry going that may be so, but the trouble is that it would put upon the exchanges the rather awkward problem of having to decide which men in town A should remain out of work and which men in town B should be brought in and given the jobs. It would be a difficult question of selection.

Mr. Daggar: In view of the fact that the Minister's reply is still unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PERSONNEL (EMERGENCY WORK)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are large numbers of men and women in His Majesty's Forces stationed in this country pending the date of their demobilisation; and whether the Government has any proposals whereby this personnel can be employed for the benefit of the nation.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Throughout the war Service personnel have been called upon in emergency to help in urgent work of national importance for which no civilian labour could be found; these arrangements now cover such members of the Forces who are awaiting demobilisation or transport to the Far East. Consultation with the trade unions locally is undertaken in every instance before Service personnel are employed.

Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good many of these men are quite capable of doing site work and the erection of the emergency houses? Can he state whether any of them are being used for this purpose at the present time?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not say without notice, but I will ascertain for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many men in Service depots to whom there is no military or other work being given? Will he train these men for their civilian life after demobilisation?

Mr. Isaacs: Courses of training for men in the Forces are very extensive and are being very fully taken up. As to whether there are a great number of unemployed I have no information.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is it not very necessary to keep these reserves so that the Government can deal with unofficial strikes?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Women's Land Army

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the terms of the letters circulated in September by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on the subject of continued Service by members of the W.L.A.; and whether the further statement regarding release, mentioned therein, has yet been issued.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The letter referred to in the first part of the Question contained an appeal by my right hon. Friend to members of the Women's Land Army in Scotland to remain at work and help to secure this year's vital harvest. I am glad to say that the response to the appeal has been most gratifying. Regarding the second part, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries informed the House yesterday, a statement is to be made in the very near future on the matter of release, and it will apply to members of the Women's Land Army in Scotland as in England and Wales.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that unless girls are attracted to make up for the loss and disappointment in not getting a gratuity, he will not get the services of these excellent women?

Mr. Fraser: I think we are very well aware of the circumstances.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the scurvy treatment that these fine young women have hitherto received during their service, how can the Government expect them to continue under such conditions without making their service and their demobilisation conditions attractive?

Housing (Ministerial Responsibility)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Ministries, in addition to the Scottish Office, are participating in the building of houses in Scotland; what function each Ministry performs; and what over-all responsibility he exercises.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): The Secretary of State's over-all responsibility for housing in Scotland covers housing policy generally, including questions of design and the formulation of the programme for the building of houses whether permanent or temporary. The Ministry of Works are responsible for the building of temporary houses. Apart from this no other Departments are participating in the building of houses, but the Ministries of Works, Supply and Labour have responsibilities on housing, as on other services, for the Supply matters which come within their respective provinces. May I add that Questions concerning labour are appropriate to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Stewart: In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his new office may I ask whether it is not a fact that at least six different Ministries are, at present, giving instructions to contractors in Scotland in order to make houses or parts of houses? Is not that faulty instructional system hindering the production of houses?

Mr. Buchanan: If the happy relationship between the hon. Member and myself is to continue as in the past, he must be more accurate in his statements. It is not correct to say what he said on the subject of permanent housing, which is the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State. Temporary housing is the responsibility of the Minister of Works. On the question of design, all is held within the Department of the Secretary of State. There are not six Ministries entering into housing in Scotland at all. The only entrance by any Department is by the Ministry of Works, and that is entirely

limited to the programme of temporary houses.

Mr. Stewart: After that extraordinary reply I will endeavour to raise the matter in to-morrow's Debate.

Land Ownership (Title)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a Commission to inquire into land ownership in Scotland and, where there is no clear title, to make recommendations on the use to which such land should be put.

Mr. Buchanan: I have made full inquiries and am advised that the number of cases in which there might be doubt as to the legal ownership of land and other heritable properties in Scotland is infinitesimal, and I do not think that in the circumstances the appointment of a commission is necessary.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that the predecessor of the present Secretary of State wrote a book in which he proved beyond question that the Tory aristocrats of Scotland got their land from hundreds of people? Has the Minister read those allegations and, having been returned in a Government which represents the people, will he not be prepared to do something in that connection?

Mr. Buchanan: In the first place I have enough to do with regard to my own past without taking on the past of anybody else. I want to say in fairness that I examined this question with a good deal of sympathy, but that the Keeper of the Register in Edinburgh, and everybody that I have consulted, say that the numbers who could not prove a legal title to own the land in question are now so small that to set up a Commission with all the expense and the work attached to it, would be quite unjustified.

Mr. Stokes: May I hope that my hon. Friend, now that he is in a position of authority, will fulfil some of his past by quickly introducing a Bill on rating of site values, so as to recover the land for the people?

Mr. Buchanan: I have enough responsibility in Scotland regarding housing, without taking on a responsibility which is not mine. If I emerge from my own, I will do quite well.

Scottish Members (Meetings)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation at an early date providing for statutory monthly meetings of Scottish Members in Edinburgh to discuss with representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils urgent matters affecting the welfare of Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend is in frequent consultation with the local authority associations in Scotland with whom he has no doubt Scottish Members are also in the closest touch. He is, of course, also very willing to meet Scottish Members either in company with local authority representatives or otherwise whenever this can be suitably arranged. He is not, however, aware of any general desire that these consultations should be put on any other than the present basis of co-operation.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that most of the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament have at one time or another given support to the idea of a Scottish Parliament, and that this proposal is only a step in that direction? In view of the difficulty of getting Scottish business discussed in this House, is it not desirable that we should set up a body in Edinburgh to discuss it?

Mr. Buchanan: This raises many issues with which it is difficult to deal at Question Time. Whatever may be said about the necessity, I am doubtful if this is the best method. I do not want anything to become a substitute for the House of Commons. I would be willing, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to look at any kind of new machinery suggested, but we need to examine it so that it does not become a substitute for the House of Commons.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman said the Secretary of State would be available to Members in Edinburgh; would it be possible sometimes for the Secretary of State to be available in Glasgow?

Mr. Buchanan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am the only member of the Government who lives in Glasgow, and I will continue to live there. Since I have been in office, I have made a practice of meeting deputations from various bodies in that great city. I hope to continue to

do that, and if at any time the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to see me in the city, nobody will be more pleased than I.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman realise that I am not asking him to continue the domestic hospitality which is always open to me? I am asking him to make arrangements for some meetings of Scottish Members to take place in Glasgow.

Mr. Buchanan: I recognise that sometimes meetings are better held in Glasgow. All I am anxious about is to make a convenient place and time to suit all the Scottish Members, and if there is a feeling that occasionally a meeting should be held in Glasgow as against Edinburgh, nobody will be better pleased than I.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I will raise this question at an early opportunity on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDETECTED LAND MINES (LOCATION)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the possibility that there are still in various parts of the country some land mines which have been overlooked, he will instruct the Service Departments to issue a questionnaire to serving and non-serving personnel asking them to notify any special knowledge they may have regarding the location of these undetected mines, in view of the danger to children and the general public.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I doubt whether the questionnaire suggested would provide any useful and reliable assistance. It is already the practice, where necessary, to seek further evidence direct from the men who laid the mines. Such men can readily be traced through record offices and can be cross-examined on the spot. The location of mines is a difficult problem, particularly as many may have been shifted by tides and soil movements, and, although the work is being actively pursued, I am afraid that complete clearance may take a long time.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men can be traced? Are they being traced? Is he aware that the Government will be responsible for any explosion that may take place?

The Prime Minister: They are being traced, but my reply is that the method suggested by the hon. Member would not be the most efficacious.

Sir S. Holmes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there appears to be an undetected land mine somewhere in my immediate neighbourhood in the House; and in view of the danger to hon. Members on this side should he not secure its location and have it made innocuous?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (LEND-LEASE)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister the latest position in the negotiations caused by the ending of Lend-lease by the U.S.A.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not convenient to deal with this subject by way of question and answer, but a statement will be made to the House at the first possible opportunity.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the Prime Minister cause to be published some facts and figures in simple form which the public can understand about the vital necessity of Britain exporting goods and services at world competitive prices?

The Prime Minister: I think that a good many statements and publications have already been made on this subject, and if there is anything further that can be done, I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be glad to look into it with any assistance from my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STATUTES AND ORDERS)

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider the issue to local authorities, as a general practice, of a clearly phrased precis of every Actor Order for which local authorities receive delegated responsibility.

The Prime Minister: The Government Department concerned normally issues an explanatory circular to Local Authorities on the coming into operation of a new Act or Order affecting them, and I have received no representations from local authorities that they require anything further.

Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that local authorities are already inundated with these things, that their bookshelves are full of them, and that they do not want any more?

Oral Answers to Questions — MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Prime Minister if he is considering the reform of the central machinery of government to provide for a concentration of responsibility and a rearrangement of functions.

The Prime Minister: I see no reason for any general change such as my hon. and gallant Friend seems to suggest. Attention is being given to the subject with a view to effecting any improvements that appear to be suitable in the light of present conditions.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the Prime Minister consider easing his burdens by giving us a Secretary of State for Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Major Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the anomalies that have arisen over the terms of qualification for the various campaign stars and medals; whether it is the intention to issue a victory medal; and whether he will make a full statement on the subject.

The Prime Minister: I have a scheme under consideration. It is necessary to consult the Dominion and Indian Governments before final recommendations can be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-PRISONERS OF WAR (CHRISTMAS LEAVE)

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister if a sufficient period of leave will be given to all officers and men of the R.N., Army and R.A.F. released from Japanese prisoner-of-war camps to enable them to spend the Christmas holidays in their own homes.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling).

Commander Marsden: I heard that reply and was disappointed with it. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recon-


sider the matter, and bear in mind that the leave given these men is largely spent in recovering from their hardships, and that Christmas leave is something quite different? May I ask him on this occasion to assert himself and insist on these men spending their Christmas at home?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that if the hon. and gallant Member studied the reply which I gave yesterday, he would see that it is important to do even justice between all men in this case. I suggest that if he studies that reply, he will see that it meets his point and that the kind of over-all priority which he suggests would not be fair or appreciated by the Services.

Mr. Cobb: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind the claims of the Merchant Navy in this respect?

The Prime Minister: It hardly comes in on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CASUALTIES (STATISTICS)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Prime Minister the total casualties caused to Allies and enemies in the World War 1939–45; and corresponding figures for the European War of 1914–18.

The Prime Minister: I regret that not all the figures for which my hon. Friend asks are available. Casualties to British Commonwealth and Empire Forces in the war of 1914–18 were given on 29th May, 1945, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew. Corresponding figures for casualties to enemy forces are not available. Final figures of casualties to British Commonwealth and Empire Forces in the war of 1939–45 are being collected, and will be issued as soon as they are available. An estimate of German casualties in this war was given on the 11thOctober last in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey. No estimates are available of casualties to other enemy forces. The publication of casualties to Allied Forces in both wars is a matter for the Allied Governments concerned.

Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing a White Paper giving this full information as soon as possible in some adequate classified arrangement?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DISPATCHES (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister when the dispatches relating to the fall of Singapore and the first campaign in Greece will be published.

The Prime Minister: These dispatches, with numerous others, are being prepared for publication. I am unable to forecast at present the dates on which particular dispatches will be published.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Prime Minister say whether they are likely to be published before Christmas?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADES DISPUTES ACT (REPEAL)

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing number of unofficial strikes, it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to repeal the Trades Disputes Act.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Arising out of that reply, will the Prime Minister state what measures His Majesty's Government propose to take to restore the influence and prestige of the trade unions?

Mr. Hogg: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement by the trade union concerned in the present stoppage that the activities of a certain political body have very largely fomented the strike; and has he therefore borne in mind the relevance of the first Section of the Trades Disputes Act to that sort of activity; and would it not be better to deal with the matter through the courts in the proper way?

Oral Answers to Questions — E.N.S.A.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will set up an inquiry, under the chairmanshp of a British judge, at which evidence can be taken on oath to inquire into and report to this House on the reasons for the criticisms and complaints of the working of E.N.S.A.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the question of the scandals connected with E.N.S.A. is bigger than E.N.S.A. itself and is detrimental to British prestige in occupied countries?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of it. The inquiry suggested would be a very heavy-handed way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time that E.N.S.A. should be demobilised, rather than waste time, energy and money on its further activities?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Taxation Proposals

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now arrange that old age pensions should not be subjected to Income Tax.

Mr. Jennings: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make a statement about excess profits post-war credits and Income Tax post war credits in view of the urgent need for firms to renew plant and machinery and private individuals to renew household goods.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is anticipated that post-war credits will be paid to civilians.

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of production, he will consider abolishing Income Tax on overtime earnings in all cases of workers who have otherwise worked a full week.

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove the Purchase Tax on children's play ground equipment.

Captain Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to abolish the Purchase Tax on domestic electrical appliances.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take into consideration representations made to him for review of the taxation on motor vehicles, with a view to abolishing the present system and insti-

tuting a small registration fee and an increased tax on petrol.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will abolish the present horse-power tax on motor-cars and obtain the equivalent revenue by a tax on petrol.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered and will adopt the suggestion of the Building Societies Association that post-war credits should be made available immediately for house purchase.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I must ask my hon. Friends to await my Budget Statement.

Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the answer to Question 58, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is considering his Budget Statement, consider whether this might not be a way out of the jam into which the Government have got themselves over old age pensions?

Savings Certificates (Repayment)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the approximate average interval between applications for repayment and repayment of Savings Certificates during August, 1945, September, 1945, the year 1944 and the year 1938, respectively.

Mr. Dalton: Excluding Sundays and holidays, the average interval was 7 days, 5 days, 6 days and 3 days respectively.

Royalties and Performing Rights

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was remitted to the U.S.A. during the past three years in payment of copyright royalties and performing rights of American popular songs published in the United Kingdom; and during the same period how much the United Kingdom received in respect of British popular songs published in the U.S.A.

Mr. Dalton: The amount remitted during the year ended 31st August, 1945, for royalties and performing rights of music of all sorts was about £200,00c The available figures do not distinguish popular songs from other types of music, and do not cover earlier periods. There are no records to show how much was remitted under this head from the United States to the United Kingdom.

Petrol Tax

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the additional petrol tax which would raise revenue equivalent to that produced by the present system of motor-car taxation.

Mr. Dalton: An additional 8d. a gallon assuming pre-war mileages.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a petrol tax would be a very much more equitable form of tax?

Mr. Dalton: We will perhaps discuss that next week.

Property Values (Taxation)

Sir R. Young: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the increases in value which, at present, accrue to freeholders by the falling in of leases; that such increases of value are wholly enjoyed by the freeholders; and whether he will take steps to provide that a contribution from such increased value will be paid to the State.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. This question will naturally arise in connection with the proposals foreshadowed in the King's Speech, to deal with compensation and betterment in relation to town and country planning.

Sir R. Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some landlords, when they sell their property, increase the ground rent paid by the new occupiers?

Mr. Dalton: I believe there are many such practices.

Mr. Stokes: When considering his forthcoming Budget will the right hon. Gentleman also consider introducing a tax on site values, as that is a very equitable way of recovering such properties for the people?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (TRADE DEBTS)

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now reply to questions submitted by the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce about the settlement of debts owed to British traders by firms in countries previously occupied by the enemy.

Mr. Dalton: A reply was sent on 27th September.

TEMPORARY HOUSING (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the Debate on Housing to-morrow, it may be convenient if hon. Members are informed—

Mr. Jennings: On a point of Order. Is the time such that the Question hour has expired? It looks as if there is one minute to go.

Mr. Speaker: The Office of Works never have managed to keep these clocks synchronized. The one which the hon. Member indicated is not so placed as to enable me to keep time by it. I keep a special watch to make the time accurate by Big Ben.

Mr. Morrison: In view of the Debate on Housing to-morrow, it may be convenient for hon. Members to be informed that a White Paper on temporary housing will be available in the Vote Office about 5 p.m. to-day.

ARMY OFFICERS (RELEASE SCHEME, MODIFICATION)

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): I desire, with the permission of the House, to make a statement explaining a modification which it has been found necessary to make in the programme for the release of officers.
The operation of the age and service principle in the release scheme results in a far higher proportion of officers than of other ranks becoming due for release in the early groups. Three in every four have had previous service in the ranks which counts in computing their total service for release. Seven out of every eight officers are over the age of 25. This was always foreseen, but it was expected that the resulting shortage of officers in the early period of the release scheme would be met in two ways:—
(a) by inviting officers to defer their release voluntarily; and
(b) by reducing officer establishments.
Both steps have been taken and have gone far to meet the difficulty caused by the uneven run-out of officers as contrasted with that of other ranks. But the shortage has not been wholly over-


come and, during the coming three months, the proportion of officers to other ranks will fall below the efficiency level. Notwithstanding the fact that the ratio of officers to other ranks has been reduced to a bare minimum there will be a serious shortage of officers.
It was for these reasons that Field-Marshal Alexander and Field-Marshal Montgomery found it necessary to issue orders retarding the release of certain categories of officers in the forces under their command. The House will remember that the power to retain any individual officer or soldier on grounds of vital military necessity is expressly vested in Commanders-in-Chief by paragraph 320 of the Release Regulations. The shortages in these theatres were, however, of such dimensions as to persuade Commanders that the only practical method to adopt was the retention of classes rather than of individuals. These local arrangements, whilst avoiding unfairness as between individual officers within the theatres affected, were bound to produce inequality of treatment as between the various theatres—and particularly as between overseas theatres and the forces at home. After consultation with the Commanders-in-Chief, and with the approval of His Majesty's Government, the Army Council have decided that the release of certain groups of officers throughout the world must be deferred for a period. This deferment will not apply to medical, dental or nursing officers, nor to the other ranks of any arm or corps.
The first groups of officers to be affected will be group 21, in the case of military officers, and group 28 in the case of A.T.S. officers. These groups will, as already arranged, begin release on 12th November, but the completion of their release will not be effected until 12th February. It must follow that groups 22, 23 and 24 for military officers, and groups 29 to 34 for A.T.S. officers, cannot begin to be released until the middle of February at the earliest,by which time the continued and accelerated stream of releases of other ranks should have adjusted the balance. It is confidently hoped that these deferred groups, in the case of military and A.T.S. officers respectively, will be rapidly released as soon as the balance is restored, and that the provisional dates of release already announced for subsequent groups will be

very little affected, if at all. This measure will not result in officers being held in this country doing nothing. Officers who are in these groups and are in the United Kingdom will be despatched to the B.A.O.R. The retention of groups earlier than those in group 21 in the British Army of the Rhine and elsewhere will be cancelled, although individual officers who have been retained under the vital operational necessity clause may still be retained. The present arrangements for the release of officers under Class B will not be altered.
I realise that this may cause special hardship in individual cases. There are already arrangements under which officers may apply for posting to the home establishment or for release on compassionate grounds. These arrangements will continue and special considerations arising out of the deferments I have announced will be given the fullest weight.
Nobody regrets more than I do that this temporary delay in the release of some officers has become absolutely necessary, but I am satisfied that the arrangements of which I have informed the House are best calculated to secure uniform and fair treatment, and that the officers who are affected by the decision, both men and women, will accept it in a good spirit. I may add that this delay will not affect the target figure of releases for officers and other ranks combined, up to the end of this year or up to the middle of next year. I need hardly say in conclusion that, if circumstances should permit any alleviation, I shall immediately avail myself of the opportunity.

Mr. Eden: While I am sure that all hon. Members wish to associate themselves with the regret which the right hon. Gentleman feels at having to make this statement about the service of these officers, I think it would be useful if he could make available either now, or in some other way that he thinks fit, some indication of the numbers concerned.

Mr. Lawson: I will do that with pleasure. I feel that in the circumstances the House has the right to all possible information I can give on this matter. I gather the House understands the difficult side of this for the officers; I ought to point out that the essence of the whole thing is that up to the present the men who have been held in various classes because of military necessity have been


held indefinitely. They did not know what their position was. This operation, which spreads over a much longer time will give something like a fair deal to officers. It will spread out over all theatres, and in the long run will let the officers know for how long they are to be held, and ultimately it will get us back to the position where age and length of service will act properly.

Major Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1939 and 1940 the Army was run on a much smaller proportion of officers than at present and that the deficiency was met by giving far more responsibility to N.C.O.'s and Warrant Officers, Class 3? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking now to improvise methods of finding people who can do junior officers' jobs?

Mr. Lawson: I am afraid I should want to see that question on the Order Paper. It involves quite a number of considerations with which I would not be prepared to deal at the moment.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: While I appreciate the necessity for the steps which the Army Council are taking in the circumstances, is not the need for these steps due a great deal to the fact that they have not yet announced the conditions of service of the post-war Army? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many officers whom I met on recent visits to Germany told me they were quite willing and anxious to remain in the Regular Army if only they could find out what the conditions of service are to be? Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite an announcement on that subject and in that way retain in the Service a great many officers who otherwise would be demobilised?

Mr. Lawson: I realise the need of a statement on post-war conditions for the Army, and I know that has affected certain individuals, but I ask hon. Members to note that the Army has had to supply officers for Civil Affairs, for Control Commission purposes, and for many other purposes, and this has robbed the Army of some of its ablest men.

Mr. Butcher: In view of the fact that the principle of age and length of service no longer operates equally between officers and men and between the three Services, will the right hon. Gentleman

indicate to the Leader of the House the desirability of providing an early day for a full discussion of this matter?

Mr. Lawson: I have just drawn attention to the fact that under the working of the military necessity clause and the holding up of whole classes for some months now, that principle has not been working as far as officers were concerned. We hope by this arrangement to bring the whole thing on to an even keel. Whereas the officers were held indefinitely and did not know how long they were going to be in the Army, this arrangement will give officers a definite guarantee as to how long they are to be held.

Mr. Sunderland: Will the Minister authorise inquiries to establish the truth or otherwise of opinions so frequently ventilated by officers and other ranks that there are now far more officers in relation to other ranks than are needed for the purposes of the occupation Forces?

Mr. Lawson: The proportion of officers to other ranks is bigger now than it was before the war. As to holding an inquiry, I have just completed a visit, and I would not like to hold an inquiry on all the statements that were made by me.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it proposed to return to B.A.O.R. those officers who have completed their full term of service abroad and who are now in this country?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, I said that in my statement.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Apart from the disappointment to men abroad, is my right hon. Friend aware that the housing shortage and the construction of houses will be affected by this decision, especially the inclusion of many thousands of young engineers who qualified and who will not be allowed to come back into industry as speedily as they expected?

Mr. Lawson: I think my hon. Friend has made a mistake as to what the statement means. It applies only to officers and not to the men. I also said that this arrangement would allow for more consideration to be given, particularly to the needs of industry, as well as compassionate needs.

Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that men with science degrees were made into officers over two years, ago?

Mr. Lawson: They would have their cases investigated and examined.

Colonel Ropner: Is it still the case that officers who desire to continue to serve must volunteer for a further period of one year? If so, will not the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the very large number of officers who would be ready to volunteer for continued service for six months or even for three months?

Mr. Lawson: We were hoping to get about 25,000 officers, and we got 15,000 to take on. I realise that the need is to speed up a statement on post-war conditions.

Major Beamish: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that an early statement of conditions is desirable and that this would go part of the way towards solving the problems he has mentioned, can he say how soon he will be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Lawson: No, Sir, I cannot.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend's statement was rather complex, will he consider asking the Leader of the House to provide an opportunity for a discussion on it when hon. Members have had time to study it? Or will he go into the matter a little further when he meets hon. Members in a Committee Room this afternoon?

Mr. Lawson: I would welcome an opportunity of making a statement on this matter, although I am the victim of conditions and the Business of the House like every other Minister. The meeting to which my hon. Friend alluded which I am addressing upstairs this afternoon is called for that purpose and I would like to deal with that specific subject. I do not object to a question or two at that meeting, if necessary.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the statement he is publishing details of the cuts effected in officers on headquarter establishments and also of the number of other ranks who are being commissioned to replace the shortage of officers.

Mr. Lawson: I would like to have an opportunity of considering that matter.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Minister, in determining the revised dates of release, take into account the fact that many of these officers served in the Terri-

torial Army for many months, and sometimes years, before the war and have been separated for long periods from their businesses and also from their homes?

Mr. Lawson: I expressed my very great regret at the statement I had to make particularly upon the ground of the long service of some of these men, but I again state that there will be an opportunity in particular cases for special consideration to be given. Now that this spread over is to take place, there will be a greater opportunity for compassionate consideration and things of that description than there was in the past.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any similar deferment is going to apply to officers in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force?

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), Mr. Speaker has nominated Mr. Frank Anderson, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Burden, Mr. Butcher, Dr. Haden Guest, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Sir Douglas Thomson, Mr. Touche, Mr. McLean Watson and Sir Robert Young to be the Chairmen's Panel during this Session.

PROCEDURE

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 9.]

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Second Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 3) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1945, No. 1202), a copy of which was presented on 9th October, the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1945 (S.R.&O., 1945, No. 1263) and the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 4) Order, 1945, copies of which were presented this day, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference to the Committee.

To lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 119.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[3.34 p.m.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Levy, Lt. B. W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Deer, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dobbie, W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dodds, N. N.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Lipson, D. L.


Allighan, Garry
Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Alpass, J. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lloyd-George, Lady M. (Anglesey)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Longden, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dye, S.
Lyne, A. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Edelman, M.
McAllister, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Austin, H. L.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, John (Blackburn).
McKinlay, A. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.


Baird, Capt. J.
Fairhurst, F.
MacMillan, M. K.


Balfour, A.
Farthing, W. J.
McNeil, H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bartlett, V.
Follick, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barton, C.
Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Battley, J. R.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Belcher, J. W.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Bellenger, F. J.
Freeman, P. (Newport)
Maxton, J.


Benson, G.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.


Berry, H.
Gallacher, W.
Medland, H. M.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Messer, F.


Binns, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Gilzean, A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Glanville, T. E.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Boardman, H.
Goodrich, H. E.
Monslow, W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton
Montague, F.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morley, R.


Bowen, Capt. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morris,Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Bother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Moyle, A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Murray, J. D.


Buchanan, G.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Nally, W.


Burke, W. A.
Guy, W. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Callaghan, James.
Hale, L.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby).


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Oldfield, W. H.


Chater D.
Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Harris, H. Wilson
Orbach, M.


Clitherow, R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cobb, F. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Pargiter, G. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Coldrick, W.
Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Collick, P.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Collindridge, F.
Hubbard, T.
Pearson, A.


Collins, V. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perrins, W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Piratin, P.


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Poole, Capt. C. C. (Lichfield)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Proctor, W. T.


Corvedale, Maj. Viscount
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pryde, D. J.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Randall, H. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ranger, J.


Daggar, G.
Kenyon, C.
Rankin, J.


Daines, P.
Key, C. W.
Rathbone, Miss Eleanor


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Lt.-Col. E. M.
Reeves, J.


Davies, A. E. (Burslem)
Kinley, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lavers, S.
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Richards, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)




Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stokes, R. R.
Weitzman, D.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Royle, C.
Sunderland, J. W.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Swingler, Capt. S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Sargood, R.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Scollan, T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Whittaker, J. E.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wigg, Col. G. E. C.


Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Sharp, Lt. Col. G. M.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, J. R. (Dover)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shurmer, P.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Tiffany, S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Timmins, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Simmons, C. J.
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Skeffington, A. M.
Tolley, L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williamson, T.


Skinnard, F. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Willis, E.


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, J. H.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wadsworth, G.
Wise, Major F. J.


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Walkden, E.
Woods, G. S.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Walker, G. H. (Rossendale)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Solley, L. J.
Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)
Yates, V. F.


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.


Sparks, J. A.
Warbey, W. N.
Zilliacus, K.


Stamford, W.
Watkins, T. E.



Steele, T.
Watson, W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham. E.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mr. Mathers and Captain Bing.




NOES.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pitman, I. J.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Ponsonby, Col.C. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Lt.-Col. N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.).
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Jennings, R.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, Sqn.-Ldr. E. H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hn, G. (P'b'ke)
Snadden, W. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Col. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bère, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Marsnall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mellor, Sir J.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
York, C.


Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H.
Nicholson, G.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Harvey, Air Cmdre. A. V.
Nield, B.



Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Commander Agnew and Mr. Drewe.


Hinchingbrooke. Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1945

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

3.48 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): This might be described as a cleaning-up operation, and I trust the Committee will approve it. When the last Vote of Credit was presented on 8th June last by my predecessor, whom I am very glad to see sitting opposite me at the moment, the sum which he then asked for was £1,750,000,000 and that was calculated to meet expenditure, under the wide terms which you. Major Milner, have read out, covering, of course, not only direct war expenditure, but practically all other needs of the Government—the whole thing—this figure, which my predecessor indicated, of £1,750,000,000, was calculated to tide the Government over the then impending Election and to give an interval until the new House of Commons might assemble and survey the situation as it would have developed as a consequence of the operations of the war. During the last few weeks, the Vote of Credit Expenditure, under the Vote which my predecessor put before the previous Parliament, averaged between £12,500,000 and £13,000,000 a day, of which about £11,000,000 has been in respect of the Fighting and Supply Services, and, at this rate of expenditure the present Vote will be exhausted by the first week in November.
I have, therefore, now to ask the Committee to make special provision within the same framework of the Vote of Credit, which I think we must continue and which I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will acknowledge the Treasury should continue, for the remainder of this financial year. Perhaps I might, at this stage, say that, as from the beginning of the next-financial year, we shall have reverted to the system of Estimates, which will be subject of Parliamentary control and will be subject to stricter Treasury control than my predecessor was able in time of war to enforce and which I cannot, as yet, enforce. The Estimate system will be re-introduced as from April next. Meanwhile, there is no practical alternative, in terms of administration, to continuing the Vote of Credit system for the remaining months of this financial year.
When the last Vote of Credit was granted, the war with Germany had already been brought to a victorious end. The war with Japan was still proceeding, and it was still impossible to estimate with any kind of precision, as the right hon. Gentleman then explained, just what might be required in order to finance the conclusion of the Japanese war, and still less was it possible to estimate with any degree of precision the amount of money that would be required to finance what I may call the war terminals and all the transitional arrangements which are now, of course, a very important element in our total expenditure. The abnormal expenditure arising from the war will go on in gradually slackening amount for years rather than months ahead. We have had war commitments, now in course of being liquidated, following the double victory. We have a process of demobilisation taking place at an accelerated speed, as the Committee has been informed, and all this involves, with its consequential payments of gratuities and so on, very large sums of money.
On Tuesday of next week, I hope to ask the Committee to look at many of these questions in a wider context when I make my Budget Statement, but, meanwhile, I would like to tell the Committee now what I shall also refer to next week in other contexts. I have already asked all the Departments, even though the Estimate system cannot fully be re-introduced until the next financial year, to do their utmost to reduce expenditure in


all possible directions under the present financial difficulties, with which we are all familiar, and with a view to speeding up the re-establishment of the export trade as quickly as we can and meeting the most urgent demands under the head of social expenditure. I have urged upon the Departments, and I am confident I shall get a response from them, the need to abbreviate their demands as much as they can.
I am anxious to ask for a sum which will contain a margin of safety. I frankly tell the Committee that I do not expect that we shall have to expend £2,000,000,000 in the remaining period of the financial year. At the same time, I cannot give any estimate as to by how much the expenditure is likely to fall short of this figure. I have, therefore, inserted a safety margin in order that it shall not be necessary for me to come to the Committee again and ask for a further sum. That is why I began by describing this Vote as a final mopping up operation, and I hope the Committee will think it is a reasonable way to proceed, especially when it is borne in mind that all this expenditure will be subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee in due course, so that anything irregular or objectionable can be noted and reported to the House.
There is also a matter which my predecessor has explained on earlier occasions when Votes of Credit were before the Committee and to which I should refer, which constitutes a further element of uncertainty as to the total sum which we shall spend. We must allow a margin for that necessary difference which is bound to arise in the course of our accounting between the amount of expenditure chargeable to this year's account and the amount of cash required to be issued from the Exchequer during the year. The former of these amounts will probably be larger than the other, because, under war conditions, a number of Departments had to keep large working balances in various parts of the world, either in their own hands or in banking accounts, and some of the expenditure chargeable to this year's accounts may be defrayed out of these balances, in which case, it will not, of course, involve the issue of cash from the Exchequer this year. We cannot forecast how much this difference will be, but, since we are com-

ing to the end of the Vote of Credit period, there is reason to expect that it may be quite significant in amount.
Putting in a margin for safety, I am asking the Committee to authorise a Vote of Credit for £2,000,000,000 because of the technical points to which I have just referred and economies which I hope I shall persuade the Departments to make even in the course of a few months until the financial year comes to an end. I shall be much disappointed if the actual cash charged to this year's Budget does not fall noticeably short of the total of £4,750,000,000, which is the sum of the £2,000,000,000 I am asking for now and the £2,750,000,000 granted to the late Government at the request of my predecessor. I hope we shall not reach that figure. That is all which, at this stage, I desire to say in commending this Vote to the Committee. It is the final stage of this aspect of our war finance. It has proved, during the war, to be necessary to have this particular procedure, but it is coming to an end when the financial year comes to an end, and I hope the Committee will agree that, in all the circumstances, it is a reasonable sum to ask and that they will duly grant it.

3.58 p.m.

Sir John Anderson: I should like to take this opportunity, the first that I have had, of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the very important office to which he has been called, and of wishing him well—I say this in all sincerity—in the discharge of the very heavy responsibilities which will fall upon him. I wish, before I sit down, to say a word about the decision of the Government, which I regard as unfortunate, to have the whole of this amount expected to be required up to the end of the financial year in one lump of £2,000,000,000. It is, if I am not mistaken, the largest Vote ever submitted to this Committee. It is not, I think, necessary for me to emphasise the fact that Vote of Credit procedure is a financial expedient of a quite exceptional character. By common consent, it is a necessary procedure under the conditions of war and when it is necessary for the Government to keep abreast of the developing military situation when everyone is intent on a single purpose—the successful prosecution of the war, which must, on no account, be impeded or prejudiced by financial


difficulties. In time of peace, however, when conditions of active warfare have passed away, it requires I think some exceptional justification to proceed by way of a Vote of Credit. The ordinary method, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, is by departmental Estimate, by a procedure which has been developed as a result of experience over long years for the purpose of enabling this House of Commons to discharge as effectively as may be what is probably its most important function, the control of public expenditure.
There are many new Members in this House who may be assumed not to be wholly familiar with House of Commons procedure and with the nature of the financial safeguards which it is customary to apply. I make no apology, therefore, for pointing out that, under ordinary procedure, Estimates are submitted which are considered one by one. Each Estimate is divided into three parts. The first part defines the scope of the Vote—it corresponds in a sense with the long title of a Bill; Part 2 of the Estimate gives under heads and sub-heads, as may be thought convenient, the details of the expenditure; in Part 3 one is accustomed to find any necessary explanations. Now that procedure undoubtedly facilitates effective criticism. All that is lost under Vote of Credit procedure, and we have to rely on other methods for ensuring necessary control. Now, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, I do not seek to challenge the decision to take a Vote of Credit on this occasion. I agree with him that to pass suddenly from Vote of Credit Procedure to the ordinary procedure of detailed Estimates would throw an impossible burden on the Departments and the authorities concerned. However, I had hoped to hear on this occasion a little more than has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman about the state of our finances, about the trend of our finances. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will find a convenient opportunity for going into all that in detail in his Budget Statement next week. Nevertheless, I think he will agree that it is not out of place, when this very large Vote is submitted for the consideration of the Committee, to say just a word about the indications, so far as they are at present available, of the way things are going.

In my Budget Statement of 24th April last I ventured, with all necessary cautionary references, to make some forecast of the probable course of events. I pointed out, as it was my duty to do, the difficulty of making any exact Estimates, but I had to do the best I could in the light of the information then available to me. My estimate at that date—at a date when the war in Europe had not yet come to an end—of the amount likely to be required for Votes of Credit, was £4,500,000,000, compared with £5,000,000,000 estimated and I think £5,125,000,000 actually realised in the last completed financial year. Now as the right hon. Gentleman has made clear, this Vote he is submitting will bring the total of Votes of Credit in this financial year up to £4,750,000,000—£250,000,000 more than I estimated on the 24th April last, notwithstanding the fact that the war in Europe had come to an end rather earlier than I could then have anticipated, and the war in the East very much earlier—because I had assumed for the purposes of my financial statement that the war in the East would continue throughout the present financial year. Now it is surely a matter of some concern that the modest expectation which I submitted to the House last April seems likely to be falsified even though, as the right hon. Gentleman has made clear, he is hopeful of effecting some saving on the £2,000,000,000 Vote which he is now submitting.
I referred in my Budget speech in some detail to the necessity for a very close watch upon expenditure, and I would like to emphasise that matter again to-day. Economy does not come about of itself; it has to be pursued, continuous pressure is necessary at all vital points, and there must be vigorous drive from the centre. Some of the measures which are taken to prevent extravagance at a time when expenditure is rising may re-emerge actually as obstacles when the time comes for reducing expenditure. For example, it is an ordinary rule in framing establishments that the strength of the higher ranks should be related to the strength of the ranks below. That is a salutary rule when new expenditure is under consideration but, when you are cutting down expenditure, what you must keep in view is that there may be a tendency—I do not say there is always—


on the part of those in the higher ranks who have a great deal to do with the effecting of economies, to hesitate to press for the maximum reduction in the strengths of the ranks below because of the repercussion upon the higher ranks. I do not want to put the matter too high, but that is an illustration of the necessity for a very close watch on all these matters by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers who stand outside the ranks of the spending Departments.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had asked the Departments to do everything possible to reduce expenditure. I do not think that goes quite far enough. I do not think it is sufficient to ask the Departments; I think some special machinery is necessary to hold the Departments to their duty to cut down expenditure. Unpopular things have to be done, there must be pressure from outside to make sure that they are done, and are done effectively and in good time, and that is a matter which concerns all of us. The rate at which public expenditure is being incurred has its reflection in the sums that have to be taken by way of taxation, by way of loans from the whole community without distinction of rank or class, and we should not be doing our duty as Members of this House if we did not insist upon the paramount necessity of making a very special and vigorous effort, even at this difficult time, to ensure the maximum of economy. I well know what are the problems that crowd in upon the attention of Ministers to-day—problems at home and abroad, foreign affairs, affairs at home, housing, the state of the coal industry, strikes, problems in connection with India and Palestine, the balance of payments, which is a very difficult problem, the building up of our export trade, not to mention the development of one or two interesting socialist experiments. All these things demand attention from Ministers and I know from experience how difficult it is to compass within the 24 hours all the duties that have to be performed. I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman, I want to strengthen his hand in this matter, and I hope that he, or perhaps the Financial Secretary if he winds up this Debate, will be able to give us some further assurance.
However, I confess that I regret the decision of the Government to take the

whole of this money in one lump. They will get their Vote, of course, but quite apart from the fact—which the right hon. Gentleman did not try to gloss over—that one of his reasons for taking the Vote in this way—not, I think, a very good one—was to avoid having to come back to this House whose duty it is to control expenditure for a further demand, I think that at this particular juncture to take £2,000,000,000, a larger sum, may I repeat, than has been taken on any previous occasion even during the war, is bad psychologically. It tends to create the impression that money is no obstacle. A very different impression must be created in all the Departments, in all the Services, in the minds of all who have anything to do with public administration or public expenditure, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would have made the desired impression on the minds of those people much more effectively if the Vote had been divided and, instead of being put at a higher level than ever before, if smaller sums of, say £500,000,000 at a time had been taken so that this House would have recurring opportunities of examining the position and putting to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues the question that should rightly and properly be put to them in this matter.
Having said that, I hope that we may have from the right hon. Gentleman or his representatives further assurances that he will do everything possible and will have the full support of his colleagues—the heads of the spending Departments—in doing everything possible to bring expenditure down to a more reasonable level at the earliest possible moment. It is no good saying that the Public Accounts Committee will come along. The Public Accounts Committee comes along after the event, and no doubt if there are irregularities the Public Accounts Committee will call attention to them and their report will have some attention, perhaps perfunctory attention, in this House, but it is not a question of irregularities. The Public Accounts Committee has nothing to do with excessive expenditure if it is duly vouched and in accordance with law. It is not the function of the Public Accounts Committee to control the level of expenditure. That, I suggest, is primarily the right hon. Gentleman's function. That is all I have to say on this Vote.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Whittaker: In rising for the first time to make a speech in this House I sincerely hope and believe that Members of the Committee will extend to me the consideration which has so readily been granted to previous speakers in making their maiden efforts. I was pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that this Vote of Credit would be the last of its kind, and that we shall soon return to our more normal method of making Estimates. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will give close scrutiny to every item.
I wish to call attention to several matters with which this Vote is concerned, and to ask that in certain respects we should be liberal in our interpretation of these Estimates. I notice that much of the money will be required for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under control of the United Nations. When it is considered what we have heard in this House and elsewhere about conditions in European countries and in countries in the Far East, and what was said the other night on the Adjournment about the real danger of starvation in Europe, I would ask the Government not to be cheeseparing in any expenditure connected with bringing relief to countries which have been devastated and ravaged by war. We are taxed to the limit, and we are suffering from many shortages, food and clothing in particular. We appear to have given all that we can, but I believe that when the country begins fully to understand the conditions in Europe, and recognises that there is a likelihood of famine this winter unparalleled in the history of mankind, much consideration will be given to any expenditure we care to make to bring relief to the nations which have come under our control. I would ask the Government not to make that relief subject to any political pressure. After the last war much of the relief that was granted was granted only provided the Governments concerned acquiesced in the political pressure that was brought to bear. I hope that relief will be given understandingly and fairly in all cases.
I would also ask that rehabilitation should be considered as well as relief. In many countries, until we put their industries on a really sound footing, and attend to their agriculture and so make it

possible for them to help themselves, we cannot bring a real sound economic life back to Europe. So I hope that any expenditure required for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of the United Nations will be interpreted liberally. It will pay us in the long run in any case, because the quicker we can get a real world economy the better it will be financially for us, apart from the moral aspect of the problem. Since the major fighting has finished—we all hope that the sporadic outbursts in various parts of the world will quickly cease—it is to be presumed that expenditure will steadily diminish. I hope the Government will see that any expenditure required for demobilisation, in the matter of the greatest possible comforts being provided for our soldiers in bringing them home and every possible facility being granted for their re-equipment and resettlement in civilian life, will be readily met. I hope we shall be generous to our ex-Service men.
I am particularly pleased to note that one of the items in this Vote is for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. I am a Lancashire man, and I represent the constituency of Heywood and Radcliffe, which embraces the towns of Ramsbottom and Whitefield. In this great area surrounding Manchester containing many important towns, there is a total population of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people. It is a great industrial region; in fact, we regard it as the industrial backbone of the country. During the last war when industry in that area was prosperous things went on well indeed, but when peace came there was complete disruption. The cotton industry in particular suffered to such an extent that it has not yet recovered and requires all the efforts of the Government, particularly the President of the Board of Trade, to put it right. I am glad of the attention which the President of the Board of Trade is giving to Lancashire. This disruption of industry was due to the fact that no real provision was made for an orderly transfer from a war to a peace-time economy. I hope that the Government will see that we have an orderly transfer this time, that industries in Lancashire will be considered very favourably in that connection, so that we shall not suffer, as we did after the last war, from an economic


catastrophe due to switch over from a war to a peace-time economy without proper provision being made beforehand, and without the necessary finances being provided. For that reason, I welcome that item in this Vote of Credit.
I conclude by referring to another matter connected with taxation. In the near future taxation must begin progressively to diminish; we hope that that process will begin in the next few months. We are all agreed about certain reforms of taxation which must be introduced, such as consideration to the lower income groups, the raising of the Income Tax allowances, and the abolition of Purchase Tax. I want to call attention to one aspect of taxation which is having a most pernicious social effect, and that is the very high taxation on certain forms of entertainment, and on tobacco and cigarettes.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he must not talk about taxation on a Vote which deals with expenditure only.

Mr. Whittaker: The point I wished to make was that many young people are spending a third or a half of their incomes on these things, and it is introducing a social evil which should be combated. However, I will leave that matter, Major Milner. The Chancellor said he hoped there would be a considerable saving, that he had estimated for the maximum amount but that in all probability he would not spend £2,000,000,000. I hope he will give consideration to one or two points which, I presume, will come under the terms of this Vote. I refer to the matter of pensions for parents whose sons have been killed in the war, and to old age pensions. If there is any saving I think some consideration should be given to these two matters.

4.25 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I first ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will convey my apologies to the Chancellor for not being in my place when a Question in my name was called earlier to-day? In regard to this Vote of Credit, as I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) I hoped he might say something about the Select Committee on National Expenditure. That Committee, which was appointed by this

House and was representative of all parties, sat at various times for four and a half years, and on it were many of my friends who now decorate, with great efficiency, the Government Front Bench. I think it was very great experience for them. That Committee was one of the best means by which Parliament played its part in maintaining some sort of supervision over expenditure. The position today is sufficiently serious without any need to labour it, and surely it is doubly necessary now, when we are to have a large measure of control, to enable the House of Commons, through whatever constitutional means were set up by the foresight of our forbears, on every occasion to assist the Treasury and inform Parliament about expenditure, and point out, in its various Reports what the effect of that expenditure is and whether taxpayers are getting value for their money.
My attention has just been called to the fact that the hon. Member for Hey wood and Radcliffe (Mr. Whittaker) was making his maiden speech just now, and I want to apologise to him for overlooking the congratulations which are due to him. His eloquence was so complete and his assurance so praiseworthy, that I forgot for a moment that it was his maiden speech. I would like to congratulate him very much on what he had to say, and to sympathise in having "slipped up" on a point of Order in his first effort in this Chamber. We all know that it is very confusing, but the way in which he accepted the Ruling of the Chair and continued his speech showed his assurance. I believe that he will, as time goes on, make some further very useful contributions to our Debates.
I was endeavouring to say in the early part of my speech, Major Milner, that if the Select Committee on National Expenditure was useful in war-time it is just as useful now. The Reports of that Committee are available to hon Members, and I know there are many who have come to this House for the first time who are very interested in all our Parliamentary procedure. That Committee produced 99 reports during four and a half years. One of the last was the Eleventh Report made in the last Parliament, which gives a summary of all that has been recommended in the past and the procedure of previous Parliaments in giving the House of Commons the means of looking after,


or seeing to, public expenditure. Earlier, the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee, constitutionally, is a sort of coroner's court. It carries out the inquest on the corpse, and that is all there is about it. As my right hon. Friend said, sometimes their reports are considered in a somewhat perfunctory manner and we all know how disappointing it is when recommendations which one thinks are ideal are sometimes brusquely swept aside. The Select Committee, on which I served, made recommendations as to the sort of operations that might be carried out for the benefit of the taxpayer and the reduction of taxes. If I may briefly quote from this last Eleventh Report, the words which were unanimously passed by hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Socialist Party, and by our side were:
We are deeply convinced of the continuing need of the detailed investigation of current expenditure, not only during the period of transition from war to peace, but also thereafter.
I would like to point out that after the last war—I was a Member of this House in 1918—there was set up the Geddes Committee, and what was known as the Geddes Axe. There were many opinions about the Geddes Axe, and it did a lot of rough cutting down, but, on the other hand, I think, it also did a lot of good. I believe the procedure of the Select Committee on National Expenditure going quietly ahead and reviewing the different forms of expenditure in different Departments did nothing but help the Treasury, and although we were at times chided by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country for overstepping our terms of reference, we did that for the purpose of assisting the House of Commons to realise and understand where the money was going and why it was being spent. I do feel that at this time of transition when, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, we may be going back to the ordinary estimates procedure for the next financial year—although we have to wait between now and April for that—and with the great deal of work which was suspended when the last Parliament ceased to function and various Reports which still await publication, that this Committee

should be set up again. Therefore it was for many reasons that I regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not immediately say "Of course we cannot get on at all without setting up again the Select Committee on National Expenditure"; nor did my right hon. Friend give us any thanks for all the work we had done over four and a half years in trying to assist him.
There is one other point germane to this discussion: If you are going to help a Department in cutting down it is no good, as the Chancellor said, sending out a chit to the Department saying, "You must not spend so much." It is not the fault of the Department always that money is spent; it is the fault of this House, and we have to make up our minds that the country cannot afford to spend money uselessly. When you have a Watchdog Committee of hon. Members of this House, drawn in proportion to the strength of the parties, it enables the House to look at this expenditure, and when the Estimates come on to be discussed you do not have, what usually occurs, the Estimates used simply for raising one or two matters and not the whole sweep. I believe that it is perfectly true to-day as it was in the recommendation made after the last war, when Lord Samuel, a Member of another place, was Chairman of the then Select Committee on National Expenditure, and this House passed in very strong terms a Resolution saying that the proper supervision of Estimates was necessary to assist the Estimates Committee. The Estimates Committee was set up and many hon. Members served on it. I think its terms of reference rather kept it in and I believe the terms of reference of the last Select Committee on National Expenditure would be more suitable really for assisting this Government to get back from wartime to peace-time expenditure.
Finally, I do feel that it would be in the interests of the Government and the country, at a time when we are in for all sorts of exhilarating and exciting new experiments, if more hon. Members, through the medium of this constitutional machinery, kept in touch with the everyday expenditure of the different Departments. There are certain forms of expenditure—let us be quite frank about it—which are governed very largely by the personal considerations of the gentleman in charge of the Department. They


say, "Why should we reduce if they are not reducing over there?" That is a very difficult thing to deal with, unless you can bring a searchlight to bear on the particular Department. There are to-day many complications remaining from the war—and I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman last week pointing out that the taxpayers of this country are spending every week now £2,500,000 on maintaining and looking after the Forces of our Allies—which involve supervising, and the giving up of a great deal of requisitioned property.
All of us, without exception, have had letters from our constituents asking for the release of such property. Various reasons are given by the Departments as to why it cannot be released. It may be that an official who wants to release it is under the orders of a superior who says you cannot release it. When a Parliamentary Committee is interested, it does make a Department look twice because it has to justify in evidence on oath the reason why this property should not be de-requisitioned. The Financial Secretary and Ministers to-day are far too engrossed to go into details on matters of that kind. I believe that, without interfering at all with the responsibility of the Executive, that is possibly the right way for Members of the House of Commons to play their part in controlling expenditure, in seeing that there is no waste, and in making recommendations to Parliament. By studying the Estimates as they are presented they are able themselves to make a useful contribution when the Estimates come up for consideration.
I suggest that with the present situation in the world none of us can say what will be the position six months hence. Some of us view the future with the very greatest alarm. I go so far as to say that I would not be sure there will never be a fusion of all parties in this House to see us through all the difficulties that face us. We are tired and war-weary and our financial strength is reduced, and, therefore, we cannot possibly allow any wasteful expenditure. I think any means for fighting that ought to be adopted, and any means that a Committee can find to maintain research and development for the Services, to see that they are not reduced below what is necessary. I want to congratulate the Secretary of State for War and the Gov-

ernment on their courage in coming to the House and giving a plain statement of fact. It is no use winning the war and then throwing away everything that is won. The responsibility of the commanders in the field and of their officials, and certainly of the Foreign Office, to-day is such that we ought not to discourage the spending of one penny if it is necessary for the future maintenance of peace. We ought to look most carefully to see that there is no wasteful expenditure. This vast sum of £2,000,000,000, which is a larger sum, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, than has even been asked for before, is surely a sum which makes it the more necessary that a Select Committee on National Expenditure should be set up to assist Parliament in seeing that the money is spent profitably and that there is no waste.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has put in a good word for the War Expenditure Committee. I had the honour of serving on that Committee for some years and know what an important job it had. One objection I had concerning the War Expenditure Committee was the manner in which this House treated it. The Reports we made were more like writing the minutes of an archaeological society, because this House never gave a single day to discussing them. It did a magnificent job of work, and work which will be essential in the coming years, but the neglect of the work done by the War Expenditure Committee was simply disgraceful. We sat all those years and produced Reports and never a single day did this House give to discussing them, in spite of the fact that we asked the Government, time after time, to provide a day for discussion. It does very little credit to the Government of the day who refused that opportunity. Nevertheless, the records and the Reports are there, and they will repay study.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day made rather a remarkable statement. I understood him to say that the heads of certain Departments and high officers in the Services deliberately maintained a higher personnel than was necessary, because to use his own terms—and I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present to correct me if I am wrong—of the repercussions on high officers. I think he was telling the House that there are


Departments and Services who continued to employ more people in them than necessary for the sake of their own prestige.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was saying that. I think he was saying that it is a danger which might occur, and which ought to be watched and guarded against by the Treasury as being a rather natural temptation.

Mr. Edwards: I have no doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman said to the Committee to-day means exactly what I have said. He would not have made such a statement unless he meant that, at this moment, high officials and high officers are deliberately keeping larger staffs than necessary and wilfully wasting this country's money in order to maintain their own position and their own prestige. That is a disgraceful thing to have to admit to this Committee. When the hon. Gentleman described the Geddes Committee I think he was rather wide of the mark. There was reckless slashing of everyone's salary and expenditure regardless of the facts, and no economy at all. After going on with that slashing, he appointed a super-man to do it at £10,000 a year. He was called a super-man, but I do not know whether he christened himself or whether that honour was thrust upon him.
I hope that when this Government begins to talk about savings and economies they will cut out what I consider one of the most reckless wastages of war-time—this appalling war savings campaign. I had occasion to speak about it during the war from the other side of the House. Yesterday, for the first time, I found myself on a platform advocating war savings—not that I have ever said anything against honest, real savings. I was addressing a big crowd of people, and it was announced that £245,000 had been subscribed already towards the £700,000 which they are aiming to raise in my constituency this week. I congratulated the crowd to which I was speaking on having £245,000 to save. The crowd to whom I spoke had not produced 5d., let alone £245,000. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have stopped that hypocrisy of pretending that when banks put money into these savings weeks they are doing some service to the country.

They are doing a great disservice because they increase the rate of interest for which the Chancellor can get other money from 1⅛ per cent. to 2½ per cent. He could have got every penny from the banks, the Prudential and other people who boast of their service to the nation but who have done nothing more than double the cost of the interest he has to pay for the money.
It is not only the waste in money. It made one ashamed to go through Trafalgar Square, when men were waiting for shells and munitions, to see crowds of hundreds of thousands of people wasting a day there listening to cinema parties, etc., when they should have been going about their work of increasing production. We should now have stopped all that nonsense. I ask whether the present Chancellor cannot consult any of his officials in the Provinces. They are tired to death of it and do not want any more of it. Thanksgiving weeks are the greatest hypocrisy, wasting more time when what is wanted is more production, especially in view of all that was said by the previous Government about the necessity for exports A lot of nonsense is talked about that subject. All we can say about it is that we need enough exports to pay for our essential imports. To pretend that you are better off by exporting more than that is nonsense. I should have thought that the Chancellor would have been busy about production, if he thinks that our policy at the moment should be to get goods produced to send abroad as quickly as we can. I should have said to every man in our Forces who had a job to go to, "Scram, go to your job as quickly as you can." I cannot believe that the men in our Forces will squeal if they have to stay a week or two later because a man in an essential job is to get home a week or two earlier. Let the men who produce houses, and who are key-men in industry, get home as early as possible. Week after week we see men being taken from factories. I can mention three or four even now, factories which are being pressed by the Government to increase production while another Government Department is deliberately taking away their key-men because of their age, without taking any trouble to get their other key-men out of the Forces. Production is being reduced. How can we talk about economy when we do things like that? True economy lies in putting people in the right place.


Our industrial potential has been enormously increased. Utilise that to the best advantage, and this country is better off to-day than when the war began, because to-day our capacity to produce is greater than at the beginning of the war. Why are these Departments fighting one another? Get the men who can produce into the key jobs. Let the Chancellor, if he is concerned about the finances of this country, say to these Departments through the Cabinet, "Let every man who has an essential job get to it as quick as he possibly can." That is not really doing an injustice to anyone else.
I am not sure what the Chancellor, had he been here, would have said about what I am now going to say. I think it is uneconomic to be inequitable in our methods of taxation. At this moment there are some competitive industries now that the war is over, in which each firm is doing the same amount of trade but in which one man will be able to keep the whole of his profits because he was fortunate enough to have a good profit standard, whereas another man has had to work during the war, doing as much work, and not making a penny. A man I know made £32,000 profit last year and paid that sum in Excess Profits Tax. Whatever there may have been to be said for it there is nothing to be said for it now, when competitive industry is required. There are industries in which some firms cannot find the funds for capital equipment while other people, because of their good fortune, are getting all the profits they make. It is not fair, it is inequitable. Some firms happen to have high profit standards for the simple reason that they were trading with the enemy in 1935–36–37.Because they made immense profits with our enemies before the war they were guaranteed all the profits they made in the war, whereas businesses which were just getting on to their feet before the war had not any standard, and could make no profits during the war. It is not a case of the former being more efficient competitors but much more fortunate competitors, while the others have their hands tied behind their backs, because all the money they make has to go to the Chancellor. That is crazy taxation. I hope the Chancellor will pay some attention to the present Excess Profit Tax. I believe that the fairest way to deal with it is to abolish it and to take

the money, as Snowden once said, from the people who have got it.
To return to the very important matter which the hon. Member opposite raised, I hope this House will reconstitute, if not in its old form, the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Having worked on that Committee, one knows that such a committee can do an immense service to this House and the country, and will short-circuit many of the wasteful methods of Government Departments. I can say from first-hand experience that within a day or two we got from heads of Departments facts and figures which we should never have got in months of ordinary routine. Having been in factories and workshops we knew what was going on, and could speak with some authority. I hope that the House will see to it that we proceed to re-appoint something in the nature of that Select Committee in relation to the expenditure of this country.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Boothby(Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern): I have a sneaking sympathy with some of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman opposite regarding the national savings movement. There were moments when it savoured of ballyhoo; as when the mayor received a gentleman from the Prudential who took a cheque for £500,000 from his pocket, and was solemnly thanked for it by the Town Council which bordered on the farcical. We have to bear in mind, however, that this ballyhoo did stimulate real genuine savings during the war. Many peoeple of our smaller towns were also deeply impressed when they read of their almost fabulous collective wealth at the end of one of these savings weeks. They had no idea that they were sorich. If the Prudential and the Banks contributed to the feeling which inspired them to achieve ever higher targets, it was surely a good thing. In so far as the ballyhoo of the national savings movement, which was considerable, contributed to the stimulation of general private savings, it served a useful purpose. I am not sure, however, that that purpose has not now been served.
I rise to support most strongly the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in his advocacy of the revival of a Select Committee on expenditure. I hope His Majesty's Government will take this proposal very seriously, and consider it. If


it was put to a tree vote of this House, I believe it would be carried by an overwhelming majority. So far we have yet to hear a voice raised in opposition. During the next few years the Government will be faced with almost irresistible demands from this House, and the public outside, for expenditure on almost every conceivable thing. We shall not be able to afford it, and I think the Chancellor would be well advised to fortify himself with a non-party, or rather all-party Select Committee of this House to back him up to a very considerable extent. He would find that it did fortify him; and if he paid somewhat more attention to its reports than was paid to those of the Select Committee on National Expenditure by the previous Government, and this House was enabled to debate the reports occasionally, he would also find himself greatly assisted in what may otherwise prove to be the almost impossible task of resisting current expenditure. That is the question with which this House is confronted to-day.
We are considering another Vote of Credit, for £2,000,000,000. We shall pass it in an hour or two, and think no more about it; but it is, on any analysis, a very large sum. We cannot go on in a gay way passing Votes of Credit every time we feel like it. Something has to be done about current expenditure in this country. And the only man who can do it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I do not think that my worst enemy has ever accused me of being a Diehard. I am all in favour of constructive capital expenditure; I shall even vote with some enthusiasm for the not very revolutionary Bill to nationalise the Bank of England. But I think we have not yet realised in this country how poor we now are, and how much we have drawn upon our resources during the last five or six years.
I rise really to draw a contrast. I have just come back from a second visit to the United States and Canada, and the contrast between the wealth there and the comparative poverty of this country is really startling. In both the United States and Canada at this moment there is a drive, an impetus, a rate of conversion from a war to a peace economy, which really has to be seen to be believed. They are changing over every hour of the day and of the night too; and

they are changing at such a speed that it is almost impossible to perceive any change of gear at all—and they were geared up to a very high point during the war. The drive is still there. Coming back to this country one cannot fail to notice that the impetus of the war, the drive that we had in the war, has largely gone for the time being; and that for the moment there is very little in its place, or to take its place. With much more need for it, there has been no comparable effort in this country to cut down current expenditure, which was largely for war purposes. And I am quite certain there has been no comparable effort in this country to cut red tape, which seems to be growing as fast and furiously as ever. This country is at present in no condition for the job that lies immediately ahead.
That job, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has pointed out, is, of course, production. Our industries are tied up in red tape. If, in addition, you continue to impose upon them a burden of taxation which no economic system can indefinitely survive, and if you add to that the unfairness of that taxation which the hon. Gentleman so graphically described, as applied for example to the Excess Profits Tax, you will never get the impetus to increased production and the rate of conversion that we must have if we are to pull through the next two or three difficult years.
Let me emphasise once again this question of production. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that the main purpose of our export trade is to obtain the raw materials and the food essential for our existence; but for that purpose we have to export a great number of goods, and they must be the kind that are needed by foreign countries and at a price which foreign countries are prepared to pay. This means efficiency. It means a greater rate of conversion. It means also that His Majesty's Government have got to create conditions to make possible a far greater production in this country; and I do not think they are doing that at the present time. I have some hopes for next week—not many, after much bitter experience of Budgets during the last 20 years—but unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down with some very drastic proposals, this country will have a very long and difficult road to go. There


are so many things to be done. I dare say the Financial Secretary will tell us that the reason why the Chancellor was so very cursory in his introduction of this enormous Vote of Credit was because he proposes to make a full statement on the financial situation of the country next week. The gravity of that situation can scarcely be exaggerated, and ought not to be minimised. A terrific task lies ahead. I only hope His Majesty's Government will cope with it with vigour and imagination.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad to hear both my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) complain once more about the wastage of money and the ballyhoo of national savings weeks, and I join with them—though, may I make it perfectly clear at once, not for the same reason as the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who ventilated the same view for an entirely different purpose recently in a public speech which, as I understood it, was merely political publicity.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is not the same view as the hon. Gentleman's. I have never suggested that the savings campaign was a racket.

Mr. Stokes: No, the Noble Lord has never listened to my speeches for read them with sufficient intelligence. I never thought they were understood by Members of the Tory Party. I propose to illustrate how on two occasions money has been squandered and the people have been deliberately deceived. Recently I was invited to join in a national thanksgiving savings week in my own constituency. I wrote back and said, "Are you assembling to thank God or Mammon?" Whereupon the secretary of the organisation said, "We never introduce religion into our Weeks." I said, "Clearly you are all going to worship at the shrine of the golden calf." And we left it at that. It is time the general public woke up to the way in which the money has been squandered in these idiotic displays. I hope we have seen the last of them. If only for the pupose of correcting a rumour, I would like to tell the story of the celebrated Wings for Victory Week when the

target was fixed at something of the order of £2,000,000. At 10.30 on the first day of the week there was a terrific to-do at the Town Hall. The mayor and corporation were assembled in their robes; there was a guard of honour lining the footway down the steps of the Town Hall to the road. There was a line of trumpeters across the steps blowing a clarion call of welcome. Then a large limousine drove up, and what happened? A little man in a top hat got out carrying a plush cushion. What was on it? The Ark of the Covenant? No—a cheque for a quarter of a million pounds from the Prudential. That is typical of what happens. Targets are always achieved, and if they are not it is because somebody has added up the figures wrongly. I am glad to have had the opportunity of repeating that story, because when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Chancellor I quoted the wrong figure, and the National Savings movement was very much disturbed about it.
To turn to more serious matters, I was glad that emphasis was laid by both previous speakers to whom I listened on the question of the export drive. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough said, that export does not matter twopence except in so far as it enables you to bring in goodsin exchange. We do not want to indulge in what is wrongly viewed as a favourable balance of trade. Why it is called a favourable balance of trade I have never understood. The pundits say that when you send more goods away from your country than you bringinto it you have a favourable balance. In other words, if you make yourselves poorer you are better off. If you acquire the assets of another country I can see it is favourable to those who acquire them, but unfavourable to the working people of the country. We recognise that there have to be exports. We realise that we do not grow bananas and oranges here and everybody likes them. I join with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen in his plea that more attention should be paid, particularly by the Minister of Labour, to the situation in which we find ourselves to-day because it is very serious indeed.
As an ex-soldier I speak with some feeling in the matter, and I can even say that on the day that peace was declared


at the end of the last war I immediately wrote out my resignation, but it took me six months to get out, and even then they put me on the Reserve. I can understand the feelings of the soldier and his anxiety to get home. In my view, it is absolute insanity to take away the young industrialists from the purely industrial concerns at this moment—people between the ages of 21 and 30. That way absolute disaster lies, and I hope the Minister of Labour will seriously consider the situation. It is no use saying you are going to get the men back from the Forces in time. The trouble is that you are not going to get them back with the experience of the people who have left.
I can see a serious position developing, particularly in the industry in which I am concerned—the heavy or medium heavy engineering industry. I do not speak of the armament firms. I should take the men required for the Forces from the people under 21, and I should scoop the lot in from the armament firms—not whatever their ages may be, but they do not really concern us on the export side at the present time. With regard to firms who have been engaged all through the war in continuing to produce industrial equipment for the purpose of the successful conduct of the war, and who are now required to go on doing so for the purpose of export, I submit it is essential, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me said, that their efficiency should be maintained at almost as high a level as it was for war-time purposes. What has happened? I can only speak with authority on figures which I know. Inevitably it must refer to the firms which I have the honour to look after. This is what has happened. Young men—men who have been trained up from the age of 14 until they are now 21 and over—are being taken away to such a degree that instead of our output being maintained at something like war level we shall find in 1946 that we are down to 50 per cent. of what we produced in 1942. That seems to me to be absolutely crazy. I believe that if an explanation were given to the people of what really was required, and above all—though this is not a subject of this Debate—if the men in the Forces were told what the conditions of pay and emoluments are to be in the Forces after the war—and after all, the war is over—you would immedi-

ately get a tremendous number of volunteers, which would ease this position in industry at the present time. I hope the Government policy on this matter will be the subject of very serious consideration, and more than consideration—immediate action—on the part of the Ministers concerned.
There was some talk of the octopus of Government Departments dragging the industrial machine under because of the cost of overheads and the rest of it being so great. I wish to emphasise that every single industry of which I have any knowledge, apart from those which I look after, has been desperately short of staff all through the war. Every Government Department that I have ever been into has been overwhelmed with people who have practically nothing whatever to do. [An Hon. Member: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. I can, if necessary, give a good example. There are in Government Departments lots of the lower grade clerical staff with very little on their hands. I do not think the position has changed since there was a change of Government. The fact remains that people are standing about all over the place. There is an aerodrome down in Cornwall where I was the day before yesterday. There are 650 Wrens on the station and there areonly about 100 men. What are the Wrens doing? Why does not the Minister of Labour comb them out or talk to the Navy about it? I can go on with example after example. The important fact is this: If we have to go into this export drive—and everybody knows we have, within reason—it is vitally important that we have the men in the shops and the staff in the offices to make it efficient. That ought to be No. 1 priority so far as man-power is concerned. I now want to turn to a different subject.

Mr. A. Edwards: Before my hon. Friend continues, may I remind him that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a most important point in his speech today? He warned the Government that they would have to search out economies. He said that Departments were holding on to many more people than they need, and that was one of the extravagant things which the Government would have to watch.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought my attention to what was said by the late Chancellor—I do not


know if one ought to call him that because he ought to be in his coffin if he is "late"—which I did not hear because, unfortunately, I was unable to be present. I wanted to deal with an entirely different subject which is rather near my heart—

Mr. Charles Williams: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman a question on what he has been saying? He has been telling us that there is a vast surplus in Government Departments. Supposing we did not give the Government quite so much money on this occasion, would he vole against these Estimates?

Mr. Stokes: I do not think that that interruption is in Order. I have complete confidence in this Government. I think that the last Government made a mess of it and that the new Government have to clear it up, and I am prepared to give them a little time. What I want to impress upon hon. Members above the Gangway is that there is a mess to be cleared up, and I hope that the Government will go through their organisation with a comb very quickly.
There is something that I want to touch upon which involves expenditure, and it is that I hope that at least part of this £2,000,000,000 will be spent upon really tackling the land question by means of valuation. We are always told that valuation of the land will be very expensive, but I would like to tell hon. Members that, so far as my knowledge goes, valuation would not take very long and that it would certainly not cost more than £1,000,000 to value the land of the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See what an advantage that would be. We are faced with a terrific drive for housing. Every hon. Member who has sat on a local government council knows that the biggest obstruction standing in the way the whole time is the ever-increasing cost of land and the monopoly control.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but a speech on the question of land control and land values would not be in Order on this Vote.

Mr. Stokes: I do not propose to make a speech on land values. I propose to do that on a future occasion, but surely I am entitled to say that a good deal of public money is going to be wasted out of this Vote of £2,000,000,000 unless steps are taken to see to it that robbery is not inflicted upon the community by the ever-

increasing and excessive prices of land. The only way by which we can get round the difficulty is by having a valuation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member to finish his point, but he must not develop it.

Mr. Stokes: It is a very important point.

The Deputy-Chairman: There are many other important points that would also be out of Order.

Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that on page 27 of the Estimates there is an item of £29,000 for the purchase of a piece of land in Athens, is it not relevant for the hon. Member to discuss the purchase of land?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can certainly discuss the way in which the money is to be used.

Mr. Stokes: Surely I am entitled to illustrate my argument as to the way in which some of this £2,000,000,000 will be wasted unless the right steps are taken by His Majesty's Government.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, so long as the hon. Member keeps within those limits.

Mr. Stokes: All right, then I shall continue any argument for a sentence or two more. His Majesty's Government are burking this issue which I raise. They are not facing up to it. The biggest obstruction in connection with housing is this very question of the land. How the Government are going to get on with it unless they have a valuation I do not know. If they wish to carry their schemes through, apart from the waste of public money, which will be inevitable, there will be a rise in the value of land, and the next time we come to vote £2,000,000,000 the greater proportion of it will go down the drain in the same way. As you have ruled me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, more or less all the time on this subject, I had better draw to a close. I commend this matter to the attention of His Majesty's Government and of the House, and I hope that we shall insist that something must be done to return to the people their rightful belongings, the land values that they themselves have created.

5.20 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The temptation to follow the


hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and to take sides on the subject of national savings is very great. I recently made a speech on the subject which secured some attention in the columns of the "Daily Herald" and other newspapers. I do not join with hon. Gentlemen who say that the national savings campaign is a racket. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has said, the movement has performed very great services during the war, but the question I now ask myself is whether, in peace time, honest Conservatives and honest Liberals ought to be asked to save and lend in order to establish Socialism, and the answer I get is that they ought not to.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Noble Lord is getting a little wide of the mark.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I really believe the whole subject is completely out of Order. We are now in Committee of Supply where, I understand, we can discuss only the destination of Government finance and not its source. Therefore I do not want to pursue this matter any further at the present moment, although I hope there will be many other opportunities.

Mr. Stokes: I was not discussing its source. I was discussing the waste of the money.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I join with my hon. Friends in welcoming the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Estimates procedure is to be introduced next year. It is just about time it was introduced. Here we have a flimsy piece of paper recording the services upon which this enormous sum of £2,000,000,000 is to be spent over the next six months, and it does not attempt to go into detail at all as to what the destination of this large sum is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon in his speech did not give us any broad categories about the funds which would receive this money, or as to the destination of the expenditure. He seemed to be content to come down here and invite the House to pass this vast sum, a sum surpassing any that the last Government asked for in the war, without adequate examination. That is treating the Committee of Supply with some discourtesy.
We have had a Socialist Government in office now for three months. Surely they

are capable of printing and producing a paper recording in more detail on what these sums are to be spent. There is surely some half-way house between the elaborate peace-time Estimates which are presented to the House and this miserable bit of paper with "£2,000,000,000"printed on it. I join with my hon. Friends in hoping that the Select Committee on National Expenditure will be set up with the least possible delay, in order that it should act as a check upon any tendency there might be in this Government to treat the House of Commons in a cavalier way in matters of finance. I hope the Select Committee will be set up as soon as possible. That is practically all I have to say on this occasion, but I would invite the Financial Secretary to go one step further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer did this afternoon and be much more explicit with the Committee as to how this money is to be used during the next six months.

Mr. Hale: Would the hon. Member inform us quite definitely whether he is opposed to the National Savings Campaign for the time being and also whether this money is not in respect of commitments already entered into by Governments of which the Noble Lord was a Member? How does he suggest money should be raised? Does he suggest that it might all be raised by direct taxation?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: First of all I was not a member of the late Government. Secondly, I should propose that the amount of money raised by the National Savings Campaign for peacetime purposes ought to be agreed between the parties. Otherwise the National Savings Movement will be the subject of political attack from both sides of the House.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I want to support the plea which was made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) for the re-establishment of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. That plea was supported from both sides of the Committee, and if the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) did not refer to the matter it may have been only because, in the whole of his speech, not one word was upon the subject before the Committee.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member suggesting that what I was saying was not


germane to the expenditure of public money?

Mr. Keeling: I certainly was. At the recent General Election the country pronounced for the continuance and extension of controls, and, rightly or wrongly, this House yesterday decided to give the Government power to fasten these controls upon the country by Regulation and Order for another five years. Surely the more we do that, the more we ought to exercise supervision by means of some such body as that Select Committee. Giving the Government power to control means, in effect, giving the Civil Service power to control. I am sure that the more we do that the more the country will expect us to supervise the Civil Service. We can supervise the Civil Service in other ways, such as by Question and Debate, but there is no more powerful way of exercising the right of this House to control the Civil Service than by means of this Select Committee on Expenditure, which, all through the war, summoned civil servants before it, visited, if need be, Government establishments, reported to the House, and required Government Departments to reply in writing to the recommendations in its reports. I suggest that we ought to press the Government very hard, if they need any pressing, to re-establish the Select Committee on National Expenditure.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I rise with a tremendous amount of trepidation to talk about high finance. I have been more used to domestic finance, but there is just as much ingenuity required to make the dole feed six children and two adults, as to make the finances of this House give to the nation the things the nation demands. The question always is, how much money does it take to give the nation, our customers, the things that they need? That is a matter which requires deep consideration. I am all for the establishment of the Select Committee and, for once in a way, although I abhor their politics, I commend the advice of some hon. Members opposite, especially the suggestion of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) that back benchers need to learn the way this House works in regard to its finances. Even though we dislike our opponents and their politics, much is to be gained from their experience, and I am prepared to take

advice even from them if something can accrue to the nation's benefit as a result The financial experts speak in terms of £2,000,000,000 in the same way as my wife and I talk about a "tenner" or five pounds a week. But the same principle should be applied—what is required of us, how shall we spend this money, and how shall we get it?
That brings me to the suggestion that war savings are a lot of ballyhoo. I do not agree. I agree that the handing over of a cheque of £250,000 for and on behalf of the Prudential is one thing, but that to get the average working man and his wife and children to come into the small savings movement is an entirely different thing. I happened to be the chairman in my works of a war savings group. I come from a trade which some people say is highly paid, and I say frankly that many of our men have been in the habit for many years of wasting money. Now, however, I have men come to me, as one did last week-end, and ask, "What are you doing about Thanksgiving Week?" I replied, "I am hoping you will do the same as in Salute the Soldier Week." This man then said, "My old woman and I are happy to-day because we have now got something in the bank that we did not have before." I know that many of these men would have wasted their money if it were not for small savings. Some Members on these benches may say, "You cannot spend money at the present time." I agree, but you can waste a lot if you so desire.
I am not going to sit on this back bench and listen without reply to Members of my own party decrying the good work that has been done by voluntary workers in war savings groups up and down the country. It is beyond my reasoning to understand how men with long Parliamentary experience can say, "We want to have the financial resources of the nation within our grasp to do what we will with," and, at the same time, encourage people not to save. It seems grossly unfair. The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, as I notice he has said in the Press, that he objected to saving for Socialism. Some of us have willingly saved and slaved for Conservatism for many years, and if hon. Members opposite have the patriotic zeal and enthusiasm which I believe many


of them have, they should at least do that which they expect other people to do. Never ask the other fellow to do what you are not prepared to do yourself. If the Noble Lord has at heart the interests of this great nation, the less publicity he gives the views he has expressed the better for all concerned.
We are faced with grave issues. The nation is going to demand tremendous things from this new Government, but there is not such a thing as ' "something for nothing." It is true that manna fell from Heaven, but I do not think it will fall again. Therefore, it behoves every one of us on these benches to see that our customers, the people who sent us here, have the best possible form of administration and the best type of committees set up to see that not one penny piece of public money is wasted. There is talk about a huge bureaucracy. If there are in the different Departments more people than we need, let them be weeded out. I never in my life received a penny except on a production basis. If I did not produce the goods I was called upon to make of the proper quality, I did not receive anything. If people, irrespective of rank and position, do not merit their jobs in the public service, they ought to get out. The Geddes axe was referred to. I remember something about the Geddes axe. There was some slashing done. I pride myself on being a good amateur gardener, and I know something of pruning. It is one thing to prune and slash a tree, but another thing to prune properly so that the tree will produce better another year. If you prune incorrectly the tree will produce nothing. A good deal of pruning was done by the Geddes axe, with the result that there are many trees which will never produce anything again.
Therefore, as a humble back bencher speaking on high finance for the first time, I agree with the suggestion that the best possible Committee should be set up so that men like myself, here for the first time, can have an opportunity of studying carefully the national finances and seeing that we apply the same principles that we apply at estimates time on our local authorities. There we spend as much time considering whether to purchase spades at 7s. 6d. each as on considering the purchase of land for £50,000. We have no

money in this country to waste. The question of production has been mentioned, and a valuable contribution could be made by our men in industry. They should refuse to follow the example shown by Members of the Opposition of acting on the principle of "something for nothing." The principle should be inculcated into their minds that they can only take out of the common pool what they put into it. As Socialists, we ask that more should be taken of the surplus that arises from the work of men at their common tasks in the interests of the country at large, and not, as in the past, in the interests of the few. This Select Committee will receive every support. It would be grossly wrong to allow it to be suggested that the party of which I have the honour to be a member is against savings from the point of view expressed by certain Members.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: There are at least two or three things which made the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) one of high standard and commonsense and one which must be helpful if it is carried out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He emphasised the value of the savings by the whole community. If you save and establish your position and feel a little more secure, it does not matter whether you are a Cabinet Minister or the humblest artisan, it means that you are developing and improving yourself and your work at the same time. The hon. Member referred to pruning. In common with him, I have a certain amount of knowledge of gardening, and I can assure the Committee that unless you prune at the right time and in the right way little good will be done. Both that and the savings argument are strong arguments in support of what the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier in the day. That applies also to the other argument of the hon. Gentleman on the question of waste. During the Debate and at Question time we have had from various parts of the Committee evidence of a superfluity of men in Government Departments and other places who might be better used.
What is the position of the Government in this matter? During the war the Government used to ask for £1,000,000,000. They said that it was an immense sum, representing nearly the


whole of the pre-war Budget, but that it was only fair and right that the representatives of the people should have their say about it from time to time. To-day, however, as was pointed out by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, there are great problems coining before us in the next few months and great changes in conditions, and yet the Government are asking for £2,000,000,000, which is double what the Government ever asked during the war. The Government say, "You must allow us to carry on with that double amount and we will not come before the House and ask again." That seems to me a curious position. I hear rumours of trouble here and there. Indeed, I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here and that there is no Minister of Cabinet rank on the Front Bench. Yet we are discussing one of the greatest issues of the day. I have some considerable knowledge of the House, and never, as far as I know, has a large sum been discussed in Committee without a responsible Minister being present. Certain doubts have been expressed by supporters of the Government as to whether we should give them this money, and yet no leading member of the Government is present to deal with their criticisms. Is the reason that the Government this time dare not ask for a reasonable amount? Are they trying to get all the money they can get into the "kitty" at one time? Are they trying to slip it through on a day after a day of excitement in the hope that it will have escaped our notice and that the Press will take no notice of it? Are the Government so afraid of the mutiny outside? Is that why leading Members of the Government are not here?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The reason why Ministers are not here is that one has just gone to get a cup of tea and will return in a few minutes, and the others are at most important functions. No insult is intended to the Committee. When I reply I have to make an apology from the Chancellor, who hopes to get back as soon as he can.

Mr. Williams: We are, therefore, to take it that a cup of tea for a Minister and functions for other Ministers are more important that the whole of the taxpayers of the country. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will make an adequate reply, and, from my long friend-

ship with him, I hope he will have the best of luck. In all probability, he will make as good a reply as the Minister would. That is not the point, however. The point is that there have been complaints from the Government side as well as from this side, and yet we have not a leading representative of the Government on the Front Bench. The chief Patronage Secretary has just come in, and I do not know whether he can help us in any way. I am sure that it must be with a sense of real shock that new Members opposite see the way in which the Committee is being treated on such an important matter. Hon. Members come here with a feeling of great respect for our great traditions—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has much experience of the conduct and rules of debate, and I must ask him to get back to the Vote of Credit.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but the Motion mentions
services essential to the life of the community,
and I venture to think that this House and this Committee form one of the essential services. After what has been said in various parts of the Committee I hope that we shall not have any repetition for a long time of the granting to the Government of enormous sums such as this under Supplementary Estimates.

5.48 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I desire first to express to the Committee the very deep regret of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has not been able, owing to an important engagement, to remain throughout the whole of this Debate. I think there will be general agreement in all quarters of the Committee that we have had this afternoon a good discussion which has covered the ground fairly completely. If certain points were made over and over again, that only shows that they were in the minds of various Members, and it lightens my task of reply considerably. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) opened this Debate and made two or three principal points. He said quite correctly that this is a very large Vote of Credit, the largest the Committee has ever been asked to


agree to. That, of course, is true, but it is only just true. Since the last one that he himself presented to this House was for £1,750,000,000 and it went through in exactly seven minutes. We are asking, for reasons which I shall shortly give, for the round sum of £2,000,000,000, and that, we frankly admit, is no small amount. At the same time I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the speech he made at the beginning of the Debate, did give very clear and concise reasons why the Government needed this Vote at this particular time.
The ex-Chancellor asked for an assurance that the need for economy was not only understood by the present Government, but that they were, so far as possible, putting it into effect. I can give the assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend. As he indicated in his opening speech, we realise as well as everyone else the great need that there is at the present moment for the utmost economy, but it must be combined with efficiency, and we must meet our obligations. The right hon. Gentleman, the ex-Chancellor, said that he agreed that it was impossible yet to pass from the procedure by Vote of Credit to the normal and proper method of Estimates. It is impossible to pass from Votes of Credit to the Estimates because at the moment we are still in the same financial year. For this reason it could not be done at the present time. The financial year is, as someone said of peace, indivisible, and as the present financial year was begun by a Vote of Credit—there have been two Votes of Credit during the year—it is essential that it should finish in the same way.
The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities said that earlier in the year, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he made an estimate of the total expenditure required for the year—the war against Germany then being finished and the war against Japan still to be won—of £4,500,000,000. He very properly wants to know why we are asking for £2,000,000,000, which will bring the Estimate for the current year up to £200,000,000 more than he budgeted for when the war against Japan was still to be won. The short answer to that is twofold: firstly, the £4,500,000,000 was a guess; it could not be anything else.

When there is a war on you cannot possibly indicate with any degree of certainty how much you are going to spend. That being so, although the right hon. Gentleman made his guess of £4,500,000,000 it does not mean that the present Government have been extremely extravagant because it is now asking for another £200,000,000.

Hon. Members: Two thousand millions.

Mr. Hall: Two hundred millions. The ex-Chancellor thought he would need in the current financial year a total sum of £4,500,000,000. We are now asking for £2,000,000,000 which, with the Votes of Credit already granted, will bring our total sum up to £4,750,000,000. That is £200,000,000 to £250,000,000 more than the ex-Chancellor had in mind. That sum in excess of the ex-Chancellor's estimate is largely a margin for contingencies, and we hope that it will not be needed or spent. It arises amongst other things from the balances which have to be kept in various parts of the world in case of need by various Government agencies.
It may very properly be asked why, now that the war against Japan has fortunately come to an end, there is not large and immediate reduction in the Government's demand. I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself asked that question, and the short answer is that, although the war against Japan has been won, commitments still continue, and not only does it take time to free ourselves from the manifold commitments incurred, but there are new demands which arise simply and solely because the war has fortunately come to end. Men are coming back from the Forces, gratuities and other payments are being or will be paid to the men who are being released from the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Therefore it is not true that because the war is over we can rapidly reduce our expenditure. The hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Whittaker) who made, if I may say so, a very excellent maiden speech, referred to the large sum which the Government had to find to meet their share of the resettlement in Europe. It is true that during the remainder of this financial year we have large commitments in that direction and the Government have this in mind when they ask the Committee for the sum which we are now considering.


The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) asked that a Select Committee on National Expenditure should be resurrected, and I think it was he who went on to say that the Estimates Committee should also be set up once more. The Government has under consideration the question of the setting up of a Select Committee on National Expediture, and it is hoped that an announcement will be made at a very early date. As hon. Members know, the old Estimates Committee which functioned before the war came to an end when the war fell upon the world, and it is likewise being considered whether that Committee, which like the Select Committee did excellent work, should be reconstituted.
The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) had some rather strong things to say about the Savings Campaigns. Every Member is entitled to his view, but I think that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Jack Jones) answered for me the remarks of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough. It is true that some of the money which has figured so prominently in some of the Savings Campaigns would have come in whether those campaigns had been held or not, but the effect of the campaigns has undoubtedly been to help the small saver to make up his mind. During the Savings Campaigns we have had during the war, no less a sum than £10,000,000,000 has been saved, and for my part I am delighted to think that nearly half of that has come from the small saver. It has not only been of immense value to the Government of the day in helping to bridge the gap between expenditure and taxation but it has helped the country, and will still help the country, to avoid inflation in the months to come. It is perfectly true that we should have had the weapons, the aeroplanes, the guns and all the rest whether those Savings Campaigns had been carried through or not, but it is also true that our task has been made easier—the task of the Government of that time was made easier—because those campaigns were held and because people were willing to work to get others, particularly the small people, to see the need for saving.

Mr. A. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to my speech, I am sure he will not wish to do me any injustice. I have never, throughout the war, said one word against small savings. What I

have objected to is that, coupled with those small savings—which are genuine—have been the other 50 per cent., large savings coming from the banks and other institutions. Has not that more than doubled the cost to the country? Would it not have been easier to get the small savings by telling the people the facts instead of a lot of untruths?

Mr. Hall: I do not know what my hon. Friend said in the speeches he made during any campaign, if he made any speeches, but I have helped in every campaign in my Division, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I told no lies at any time. There is an excellent case for these Campaigns. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the excellent results of these Campaigns show that they have been well worth while.

Mr. Stokes: The Financial Secretary says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but does he not think that a pudding which costs only 1¼ per cent. is better than a pudding which costs 2¼ per cent.?

Mr. Hall: I am very anxious not to get into a discussion as to what the rate of interest on Government borrowing should be. It is true to say that the Government of the day have borrowed money a good deal cheaper than the Government borrowed money during the last war, and it may well be that one of the reasons the Government have borrowed at a much cheaper rate this time is that there have been savings Campaigns and we have been more alive to the difficulties that might have arisen if there had not been those Campaigns and if other measures had not been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough was on safer ground when he spoke of the need for an export drive. He said that the release scheme should be abrogated, or at any rate changed in some respects, in order that many men could be brought out of the Services out of their turn and so get the wheels of industry turning. I think I would be out of Order if I were to discuss at any length the question of the release of men in order to help in the drive for exports, but the experience I have had in my Division goes to show that the men want to stick to the present scheme. Those who are out in the Far West do not want those who are at home to come out of


the Services purely in order to see them go into factories and workshops, ostensibly to help in the export drive, but, as they think, to do their own kith and kin serving overseas out of the jobs which they should have directly they come back. Our desire to assist exports is as great as that of anyone else, but we have to watch these things and see that the men now in the Forces do not suffer as a result of our keenness and enthusiasm to get this country back on the export map.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Excess Profits Tax. I am sure he will not want me to go into that question this evening. It is a matter with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer possibly will deal in his Budget Speech next week. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) also had some fairly hard things to say about the Savings Campaigns, but he thought they had their good side and apparently agrees with me that they did help the small saver to realise what he should do. But the hon. Member thought that the purpose of the Savings Campaigns had now gone. The Government cannot possibly take that view. On the contrary, the need for running these campaigns is greater than ever it was. Now that the war is over and the soldiers are coming back and getting their gratuities, and other people have money which they saved during the war and now want to spend, it is necessary that people should be helped to see that it is their duty to hold on a little longer until more consumers' goods are in the shops.

Mr. Boothby: I did not say that the purpose of saving had gone. I said that I thought the Savings Campaigns as carried on during the war could now serve no useful purpose.

Mr. Hall: I do not want to labour the matter, although every hon. Member who has spoken has dealt with it. I think the point which the hon. Member made was that the need for the campaigns had gone. My point is that the need for the campaigns still exists. Many small savers, unless they have the urge of the publicity given by these campaigns, will not save at the rate at which they otherwise would. The hon. Member who follows these things as closely as anyone else, will have noticed that during the last week there has been a phenomenal rise in the amount saved

by small savers, and undoubtedly that can be attributed very largely, if not entirely, to the campaign now proceeding.
The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) spoke of the White Paper as a single flimsy sheet. He must have forgotten that there has been published another Paper which is a fairly substantial document, gives an enormous amount of information, and shows how the amounts which the Government need are made up. He will find that he has in that document, except for the expenditure on the Army, Navy and Air Force and other Supply Services which for security reasons have to be treated in bulk, a very great deal more information than he imagines he has.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The information in the other document deals with a sum of £12,000,000 only.

Mr. Hall: The Noble Lord will find, if he looks through the document to which I am referring, that the Government, in their desire to keep nothing back, have given him a great deal more information than he imagines.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: What is the document to which the Financial Secretary is referring? It is a little difficult to follow his arguments.

Mr. Hall: The document is entitled "Votes of Credit, 1945–46."The summary on page 4 shows a total amount of £3,985,000,000, roughly £4,000,000,000, so that a very large proportion of the total amount which it is expected we shall need this year can be said to be included in that document.

Mr. Hogg: Does it include any part of the £2,000,000,000 we are now asked to vote?

Mr. Hall: It is all part of the Vote of Credit to complete the year.

Mr. Hogg: May we have a further explanation of this? We are being asked to vote an increase of £2,000,000,000 on the annual expenditure. [Hon. Members: "No."] As I understood my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset, his point was that we have not been given any adequate explanation of where the money is going. The Financial Secretary is telling us where the total expenditure is going in No. 6 of the Explanatory Notes issued


about national expenditure. My Noble Friend was interested in the allocation of the £2,000,000,000 we are now asked to vote.

Mr. Hall: The short answer is that the total for the year, as estimated by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, was £4,500,000,000. We have here set forth, some of it in detail but, as far as the Fighting Services are concerned, in global figures, sums amounting to £4,000,000,000, so that there is a deficiency of £500,000,000 on the ex-Chancellor's figures. The late Government and the present Government have already received, through two Votes of Credit, sums amounting to £2,750,000,000 in the aggregate. We are now asking for another £2,000,000,000. Those two amounts added together will give £4,750,000,000, and £4,000,000,000 is accounted for in the document.
The only amount not accounted for is the £750,000,000, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer briefly indicated and as I also have indicated, this money is needed by the Government to continue the Services of the Crown for the remainder of the financial year, including paymnets of gratuities to soldiers and others who are coming back. I hope that with that brief explanation the Committee will now give us the Vote of Credit and let us get on to the Estimates.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask the Financial Secretary whether the considerable sum we are now being asked to vote includes any possibility of an increase in old-age pensions?

Mr. Hall: I could not forestall the proposals of the Government for legislation, even if that were in Order. The hon. Gentleman must wait and see what the Government have to propose in that connection. I would refer him to the King's Speech, which foreshadows pretty considerable increases in various social services, and for my part I should not be surprised if part of it were to go on old-age pensions.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I hope the Financial Secretary will not resent what I have to say in my very few remarks, because he has always been very popular on both sides, and we appreciate his courtesy and brevity to-day. What I

want to say is that in the 10 years I have been a Member of Parliament I cannot remember an occasion when so much money was asked for and when the Chancellor did not or could not wait for the rest of the Debate, and when the President of the Board of Trade went out to have a cup of tea, leaving no senior Minister of Cabinet rank on the Front Bench. Last night when the whole fiscal policy of this country was being sentenced to five years with no rights of appeal, again there was—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not in Order in going over the Debate that took place last night.

Mr. Baxter: Then I will make only one point. Yesterday the Patronage Secretary had an enormous personal success in the corpse-like obedience of hon. Members supporting the Government.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now out of Order. The matter to which he is referring does not come on the Estimates.

Mr. Baxter: I will privately communicate what I was going to say to the Patronage Secretary. As the President of the Board of Trade is here, I want to say a word about exports which in the end are a means of raising revenue and of raising the standard of life in this country so that the Government will not have to ask for these immense sums. We hear very much about developing exports. I would say there is a companion policy, and it is the development of home trade. Unless our manufacturers can have a great home market and a high purchasing power in this country they cannot produce goods for sale at a competitive price abroad.
The Government are very wrong in concentrating so much upon export instead of learning from the example of America, which makes exports possible by her immense home trade. I know it is not popular with the party opposite to mention America very much in regard to financial business. It is a little bit like waving a bull at a red flag. The sheer materialistic achievement of the United States' industrial system, I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will agree, is based upon an immense home market, and if the Government persist in their policy of scarcity at home—[Interrup-


tion.] If the word "persists" does not cover five years, I will choose some other word. We have been told by the Government that we cannot expect any decided improvement in two years, and not very likely in five years. If that policy is continued and the home market value is not realised we shall have the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unless he has some other engagement, coming down and asking us for another £2,000,000 and then going on to where he had to go.

Mr. Montague: What have the Colonies done?

Mr. Baxter: I am aware of what the Colonies have done, but I am not now in a position to answer that question.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member would not be in Order.

Mr. Baxter: I have said all I have to say and I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, for your courtesy.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I should like to join the last speaker in saying how glad we are to see the Minister on the Front Bench and I would add my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade on having had what must be one of the longest cups of tea in history. I hope he had not to wait as long for his cup of tea as the country is having to wait for the products for which his Department is responsible. But I must say this, that it is wrong for the House to be treated even with unintentional discourtesy by the Government. We are not now at war but are suffering all the full rigours and horrors of peace, and it is not right that, when vast sums are being voted in these times, there should not be a Minister of Cabinet rank on the Front Bench. The Financial Secretary, who is deservedly popular and respected in this House, made a most consoling speech. I refer to the bearing of what he said upon the attitude of Members of this House during Thanksgiving Weeks. I have not spoken at any Thanksgiving Week yet, but I understand that I am going to do so. I certainly had a doubt in my mind whether I could conscientiously recommend my constituents to invest in Government bonds when the safety of those investments depended upon whether the successive Governments of

the country pursued an honest financial policy. It was not my desire to torpedo or sabotage a great national movement, but I had my doubts. However, having listened to the Financial Secretary, I can have no further doubt that the present Government will make an effort to follow an honest, orthodox and traditional financial policy. There was reason for my anxiety apart from ill-judged remarks by the Lord Privy Seal about pounds, shillings and pence being meaningless symbols. We on this side cannot forget that during the Election all sorts of golden promises were dangled in front of the nation and the electors. For example, we were told that the Means Test will be abolished. [An Hon. Member: "So it will."] It has not been abolished yet.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot see how we can discuss that subject on this Vote of Credit.

Mr. Nicholson: We have been discussing Thanksgiving Weeks and consideration of the honesty of the Government's financial policy is very necessary in considering whether I can recommend my constituents to invest their savings during these Thanksgiving Weeks. I have my own conscience to consider, and I was not going to recommend my constituents to invest in anything which might be unsafe. The difficulties which the present Government have laid up for themselves by their election promises—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is quite out of Order now. He cannot on these Estimates discuss either election promises or Government financial policy.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, surely it is permissible to discuss the manner in which the £2,000,000,000 we are now voting is supposed to be spent. As the only indication we have had so far of any importance is the Election promises of the present Government, how can we have an intelligent discussion of the matter without having reference to those promises?

Mr. McKie: Further to that point of Order, was it not in Order to refer to the whole question of savings campaigns and saving generally, seeing that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with it at length in his speech


and that several candidates of the Labour Party at the recent General Election had derided the whole idea of saving.

Mr. Nicholson: The maintenance of the purchasing power of the £ is a matter of vital importance. I will not prolong my remarks if I am out of Order. But the fact that the pound is going to continue to be worth its six or seven shillings is a matter of importance, and I for one am sure that we on this side of the Committee will give every support to the Government in maintaining a sound financial policy, and also extend our commiseration to them in the difficulties they will have with their own back benchers when it comes to the question of keeping their Election promises.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of War.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945

CLASS I

REPAYMENTS TO THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding,£7,933, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain miscellaneous advances.

Mr. Hogg: Cannot we know for what we are being asked to pay? I am simply asking whether we should vote these sums of money without having an explanation from the Government.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Government are very willing to give all the explanations within their power that Members of the Committee may require. This is a hardy

annual as most of those of us who have been in the House any length of time know. It is the repayment of a sum just short of £8,000 to the Civil Contingencies Fund which has during the past year been advanced for certain miscellaneous items of expenditure, which have not fallen under any of the existing votes and which now it is desired to repay to the Civil Contingencies Fund. As old Members of this House know, the balance kept on this Fund now stands at £1,500,000 and if hon. Members desire details of how this £7,933 is made up they will find it on page 4 of the document which I think they will have had from the Vote Office. With that brief explanation I hope that the Committee will allow us to have this Estimate.

Overlapping Income Tax Payments

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for payments to certain temporary Crown Servants in respect of overlapping Income Tax payments.

Mr. Hogg: As long as these Votes are put as separate items requiring separate votes, may we have at least a formal explanation and be told what they are?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The short explanation of this Vote is that it contains the implementation of the promise given by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government when P.A.Y.E. was first introduced. Certain temporary civil servants entered the Government service during the war, and owing to the fact that as a normal procedure Government servants had tax deducted as they were paid, they found themselves, in the first year at least, paying double taxation. They were paying the tax they owed on their previous occupation and were also having deductions made from their salary as temporary civil servants.
Therefore, when P.A.Y.E. was first introduced they not unnaturally said "What about us?" The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer looked into this with that sense of justice he has. He made a statement to the House, and the House agreed that something should be done. As these temporary civil servants leave Government employ and go back to their previous or new vocations and as the


amounts become due a cash payment is made. The amount necessary to satisfy these claims during the current year ending 31st March, 1946, is £250,000, which is the amount of the estimate, and I hope that with this explanation the Committee will let us have the Vote.

Class X

HOME OFFICE (WAR SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the cost of the war services of the Home Office.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): The necessity for this Vote is purely formal and arises out of the abolition of the Ministry of Home Security on 28th May of this year. The Estimate of that Ministry was included in the statement of the Vote of Credit for 1945–46, as in earlier years. The amount of that Estimate covered a full year but by reason of the abolition of the Ministry of Home Security and the desire for simplicity in accounting, it has been decided to cancel the whole of the Ministry of Home Security Vote and charge all the expenditure of the year on this new supplementary Home Office Vote. It is purely a formal matter, and, with that explanation, I ask the Committee to approve that this small sum be granted.

CLASS II

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

6.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The first item of the Supplementary Estimate relates to an amount of £13,000 in respect to damage arising from a hurricane in the Turks and Caicos Islands. I ought to

explain that the hurricane, which came in September, was one of the most severe in the history of these parts, that very considerable damage was done, that many lighters and fishing boats were destroyed, that nearly all the houses were severely damaged, at least half of them were destroyed, wharves were demolished, and a great deal of physical distress followed. Of the population of 4,000 no less than 87 lost their lives, and these were poor people who had suffered very badly during the war period and had no reserves on which to fall back. In the circumstances, the Legislative Council of Jamaica voted £10,000 towards relief and rehabilitation, and His Majesty's Government feel that the remainder of the damage involved, and the cost of rehabilitation, should be met from Imperial funds. Accordingly, they ask that the remainder of £13,000 should be made available in order to meet the difficulties which have arisen as a result of this severe natural catastrophy.
The second item relates to a short-term loan of £42,200 to the Seamen's Hospital Society in order that they may acquire, as an interim policy, certain buildings which are necessary for the treatment of tropical diseases. The Society is the body which is largely responsible for hospital services and treatment of tropical diseases, and they have, in their present difficulties, no funds with which to purchase a temporary hospital in order to meet present demands. They have a long-term programme for finding a suitable hospital, but, at the moment, because they cannot go back to their old premises which have been condemned as a hospital by the Ministry of Health, it is necessary that a loan should be made to them in order that there should be accommodation for at least 40 beds, and other provisions made for people suffering from tropical diseases.
The third item is concerned with a grant of £25,000 to the Far Eastern Relief Committee. Many of the British internees who are now coming back from the Far East have been through a very trying and terrifying ordeal, and many of them come back without any possessions whatsoever, and they have to find, of course, a place in our own life. They need to be restored to health, and to be rehabilitated. Many of them are absolutely penniless. It is suggested that, although the Government can make normal provision for people in distress, these folk should have their


grants supplemented in cases of need from the Far Eastern Relief Fund. This fund has an unofficial representative committee, presided over by Lord Broad-bridge. It draws most of its money from the Lord Mayor's Empire Air-Raid Fund, and the purpose of this grant is to supplement the moneys of the Far Eastern Relief Fund in order that some of the distress which many of these persons will be suffering may be alleviated. These three items represent the sum of £80,200 asked for in the supplementary estimates.

Mr. York: I shall be glad if the Colonial Secretary will say whether the whole of the sum he is now asking the Committee to grant, in connection with the Turks and Caicos Islands, is in respect of housing, or, rather, the rebuilding of property, mainly housing. I would like to ask him whether he would explain if there is any compensation for crops included in this sum. If that is thecase, I would ask him to look at the report of Professor Engeldow on this particular subject, which has only just been published, in which the Professor draws attention to the fact that in the West Indies, where hurricane damage is compensated by the Colonial Office, it is very often the case that the result to native cultivators is not that which is obviously desired by His Majesty's Government. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary could enlighten me whether any of this sum has been used for that purpose.

Mr. Creech Jones: This is not in respect of damage to crops at all. The £23,000 is required for rehousing and rebuilding because practically every building received some damage or was destroyed. Only £2,000 will go in ordinary relief, £1,000 will go for wharves and the restoration of certain small works, and of the £23,000 concerned only £13,000 is asked for from the Imperial Exchequer, because £10,000 was supplied by the Government of Jamaica itself.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I would like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having been here when he made his speech, and to take this opportunity of congratulating him on making his first speech from the Front Bench. He has, I know, sown his Colonial wild oats, and now he has, with the rest of the Front Bench, a mantle of responsibility. We shall look forward to hearing more from him.
As to the damage to the Turks and Caicos Islands, I think the policy of the Colonial Office in recent years has been much more generous towards these terrible catastrophes in tropical lands than it was in the past. Hon. Members will remember that we managed to get the old loan to Honduras put on a much more satisfactory basis. I think that anybody who has had the opportunity of visiting one of these territories afflicted by a hurricane will realise what a terrible effect it has on the whole territory. I should be out of Order in dealing here with other territories suffering similarly, but I only hope the hon. Member will extend to Mauritius the same treatment as in this case.
Question put, and agreed to. Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

CLASS V

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £139,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, etc.; salaries and expenses of the Local Government Boundary Commission; a grant in aid of the National Radium Trust, a grant in aid of the Civil Service Sports Council, a grant in aid of the Women's Voluntary Services; and other services.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): The first item is the question of the Local Government Boundary Commission appointed under the Act of 1945. The Commission is to consist of a chairman, a deputy-chairman and three other members whose salaries, fees and allowances are to be paid, together with the secretarial expenses of the Commission. The Commission has not yet been definitely appointed but it is expected that an announcement will be made on that next week. This item involves the sum of £10,000.
The next item arises out of the dearth of nurses which we are experiencing in


hospitals and elsewhere, and, in dealing with this, a fresh attempt is being made to increase the number of sister tutors in order that we may carry out the training of an increased number of student nurses. To do that, it is proposed to give a grant in aid for the training of nurses to become sister tutors. Already 50 per cent. of that expenditure is granted to local authorities, but, in some cases, it is found that, because that is connected with some particular hospital, there is a hesitation on the part of nurses to take up the training. Therefore, it is proposed, whilst continuing the 50 per cent. to the hospital authorities for the training they give, to institute, also, the giving of assistance to individual nurses to take up the training, leaving them free to fill sister tutor positions at any hospital they like afterwards. In this connection it is also proposed to grant a sum of money to men and women who have served in the Services, or in industry, for 12 months in addition to the amount they get under the Rushcliffe Salaries Award, to assist them, because many of them will be entering the nursing service at a higher age than that at the appropriate point in the scale of the Rushcliffe Committee. This will give them an additional grant per annum for the period of their training.
These two sums will amount to £7,000. Again, in connection with the difficulty in staffing hospitals and other institutions, we are finding there is a dearth of domestics. In order to increase the supply of domestics for such institutions an arrangement has been made with the Women's Voluntary Service for an experiment to be carried out of setting up hostels in certain areas in which domestics can dwell and can get their training, and where they will be able to live while supplementing the domestics of the hospitals in the particular areas in which the hostels are situated. In order to get these hostels established and working well, the sum involved is £5,000, but it is expected that, as the experiment goes on, the hostels will ultimately become self supporting, because the domestics themselves will pay the fees for their board and lodging. That involves £5,000.

6.45 p.m.

Then there are two other items with regard to temporary hospitals at the

present moment. There are certain temporary hospitals which are becoming vacant due to the transfer of American troops, and it is felt, in the need of hospital accommodation which exists at present, that assistance should be given to local authorities to use these for the purpose in their localities. It is proposed, in that case, to give them a grant for the maintenance of these hospitals equal to something like 50 per cent. of the expenditure. That will involve some £10,000.

There is another item in regard to continued maintenance of the emergency maternity homes, which have figured so prominently in evacuation areas during the war. These maternity homes provided something like 3,500 beds in the evacuation areas, in which some 150,000 births have taken place in that period. In order that they may be maintained in the future, it is proposed that they shall be taken over by the local hospital authority concerned or by the voluntary hospitals and run for maternity purposes. This will involve an expenditure of £224,000, but, as the beds will be charged for to the local authorities at the average figure per day of maintenance, and to the voluntary hospitals at something like two-fifths of the expenditure involved, there will be a sum of £217,000, which is noted at the bottom of page 13 in the White Paper, which will be written off against the £224,000, leaving a net sum of £7,000 involved in this matter.

The last item is expenditure in connection with what used to be the Special Areas in England and Wales, which are now being dealt with under the Act passed last year. Under the late Act, there are certain expenses involved in providing services such as sewerage, road maintenance and things of that sort in the areas concerned. These will now, instead of being the responsibility of commissioners under the old Act, become the definite responsibility of the Ministry of Health, and the sum involved in that case is £100,000.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £139,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health, including


grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, etc.; salaries and expenses of the Local Government Boundary Commission; a grant in aid of the National Radium Trust, a grant in aid of the Civil Service Sports Council, a grant in aid of the Women's Voluntary Services; and other services.

CLASS VI

BOARD OF TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31stday of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and subordinate departments, including assistance to the watch manufacturing industry in Great Britain and a grant in aid.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): This is a new matter, and perhaps I may be allowed to give a short explanation of it to the Committee. Before the war, the Committee will appreciate that, though this country manufactured a certain number of high-grade clocks, practically the whole of our requirements, as regards the ordinary clock and watch trade, were imported from abroad. Over 7,000,000 watch movements and about 5,000,000 clock movements were imported into this country annually, and, when the war came and we needed, naturally, to mobilise all the engineering resources we could muster, the inadequacy of the clock and watch industry left a very serious gap in what may be termed our industrial armoury. The Services required a great number of clockwork fuses, as well as clocks and watches.
By the time the peak production had been reached during the war, we were able, broadly speaking, to provide the first two of these—clockwork fuses and clocks—in adequate quantities, but we have only recently reached the production stages for watches, and that only on a comparatively small scale. Consequently, we had, even in the war, to import our requirements of these, and also of an item which a good many hon. Members will remember from their correspondence—alarm clocks, which were one of the essential civilian needs. If we had had a considerable watch and clock industry earlier, not only should we have avoided the risks which are inseparable in such circumstances from dependence on

overseas sources, but we should have had a reservoir from which we should have drawn machine tools, skilled labour and management well suited to the manufacture of many of those precision instruments upon which war so much depends to-day.
The civilian population has, of course, during the war, been kept extremely short of both watches and clocks, and the knowledge that we were bound to continue a tight control over imports for a considerable time until we could see our way through the difficult problem of the balance of payments provided a second reason for considering the steps necessary to encourage the large-scale production of watches and clocks in this country itself. Accordingly, the Coalition Government invited me, when I was at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, to examine this problem with the other Ministers concerned and with the industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, did a very excellent piece of work in conducting the whole inquiry for me, and the conclusions reached by that inquiry were endorsed by myself and the President of the Board of Trade and approved by the Government last May. The present Government is in full agreement with those conclusions. Although this Committee is concerned to-day with only one of the measures which were proposed, I think it may be of assistance if I were to take this opportunity of stating briefly the other main conclusions that were reached.
First, in view of the balance of payments difficulties, to which I have already referred, quantitative restriction of imports of clocks and watches is bound to continue for some time at least, but, in deciding what imports we must licence, we shall, of course, have regard to the quantity of home-produced clocks and watches. The industry has been informed of this fact, and it is hoped it will take this opportunity of putting itself on a fully efficient basis to supply our own needs and also, we hope, to make a contribution towards our exports. Secondly, import duties on alarms and other cheap clocks were reduced to 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. ad valorem respectively to implement the Anglo-German Agreement of 1933, and the last Government agreed to bring these


again into line with the duties on other clocks and watches, namely, 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem, and a Treasury Order to that effect was made in July last. Thirdly, the Government will place orders for clocks and watches for the Services with British producers to the fullest extent practicable, always having regard to the fact that the Services must have the best equipment and that we must have it at a reasonable price. Fourthly, in order to build up a body of highly trained technicians, the provision of facilities for technical education is essential. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has decided that a National College for Clock and Watch Manufacture is needed, and she is taking steps to get this established in the near future.
These measures should enable us to build up an efficient industry so far as clocks are concerned. It is clear, however, from all the advice we have been able to secure, from our own war-time experience in production and a detailed cost investigation, that more will be needed if we are to establish ourselves firmly in the watch manufacturing field. Some firms, it may be, will be able to go ahead without further assistance than that I have already described, and we shall do all we can to make their projects a success. We are satisfied, however, that the hazards and difficulties are such that development of what amounts to substantially a new industry upon a sufficiently large scale will be unlikely without that degree of Government support, encouragement and supervision which can only be secured by some participation by the Government in the risk.
Accordingly, it is proposed that the Government should acquire and lease on easy rental terms the essential plant for a limited number of selected manufacturing projects. Pending the submission of these proposals to Parliament, those who it was thought might make a contribution to the problem were invited by the Ministry of Aircraft Production to discuss possible arrangements. Some proposals have already been submitted and others are expected to be submitted shortly, but, to enable assistance to be given immediately to the projects selected, this Supplementary Estimate is presented in advance of such legislation as may ultimately prove to be necessary.
The broad outlines of the scheme are that essential plant will be leased to the selected firms for five years at a rental of 4 per cent. per annum on the initial value of the plant, and the firms will be given the option to purchase the plant at the end of the term at the then fair market price. In other words, the firms will have been relieved of depreciation for the duration of the lease. As a condition of this assistance, the firms will be required to make full use of the plant, to undertake research and development and take all possible steps to reduce their costs, so that British watches may become, as rapidly as possible, as competitive as those made elsewhere. The forecast of £1,000,000 mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate as the total of plant to be provided is the amount which we think will be needed to start an industry basically sound and capable ultimately of meeting a large part of our demand for watches. Some part of the plant will come from Government surpluses. If we assume a rate of 15 per cent. for depreciation per annum on the initial value, the assistance to the industry over the five year period will amount to 75 per cent. of the value of the plant provided, and that will probably be somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent. of the total cost of production during that period.
If we can so establish an efficient watch-manufacturing industry at so small a cost, I am sure the Committee will agree that the money will be well spent. It is to be observed that some of these projects are being placed in the development areas, and also, in one case, it is contemplated that a factory, where certain types of watches have been manufactured during the war, will come into use. I trust that, with that short explanation, the Committee will agree to the Estimate.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Whilst thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind reference to myself, I would like to say how deeply this House and this country will be indebted to those officials of the Ministry of Aircraft Production who, at the height of the aircraft programme, in one of the worst periods of the war, gave such unstinting service in carrying out the inquiry on which this Estimate is based. I think it will turn out to be a very important day


in the history of British industry, and that from these small beginnings something very valuable to our life and trade may well spring. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we shall have the beginning of a very valuable industry here—the clock and watch industry. We shall be able to cut down imports at a time when it is imperative to do so. We shall be able to keep skilled labour in that field of high precision engineering in which we are unequalled, and we shall also be able to keep up to date in a vital field of defence and be able, should the need ever arise, to expand rapidly. I am glad on behalf of the Opposition to wish this venture every possible good fortune. The high precision firms to which we shall have to look in the future have in the war, by their hard work, their ingenuity and their courage under enemy attack, given us a very rich harvest of engineering achievement.
I am glad that the Government have realised the value of these private firms and the need and the propriety of giving them assistance in the difficult teething period of tooling-up on an expensive and elaborate scale for goods which in the early stages are bound to yield only an unremunerative return. I believe that given the good will and support which all sides of the House will be anxious to give, we shall draw from these firms in peace-time dividends as rich and valuable as they have given us in war.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind not only the big firms but the smaller ones. Some of the finest craftsmanship in the watch-making industry exists in very small firms employing perhaps four, five, six or seven men. I could show him cases in London in the Clerkenwell area where firms like that have rendered eminently valuable service to the country during the war, having been engaged on Admiralty and other contracts. They show that they possess as high a level of craftsmanship as could be found anywhere else, and it would be a thousand pities if this admirable venture, on which I congratulate all concerned, ignored these small firms.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 200,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and subordinate departments, including assistance to the watch manufacturing industry in Great Britain and a grant in aid.

SERVICES IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,050,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for services in Development Areas.

Sir S. Cripps: The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to provide funds for the anticipated expenditure to 31st March for carrying out the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, which became law in June of this year. Under this Act, as will be recollected, the Board of Trade may, for the purpose of facilitating the provision of premises needed for industrial undertakings in the Development Areas with a view to providing for, and maintaining, a stable rate of employment in those areas, acquire land and erect factories and finance trading and industrial estate companies which do not distribute profits to their members. In addition, powers are given to the Board of Trade to expend money on derelict land in Development Areas and, with the consent of the Treasury, to make grants to local authorities or non-profit-making companies towards the cost of carrying out work on such land.
Under the First Schedule to the Act four areas in Great Britain have been scheduled as Development Areas. The acquisition of land and the erection of factories is, of course, of necessity, a long term policy designed to bring opportunities for employment into those neighbourhoods in which the workers are available and hitherto there have not been the premises available in which they could work. It involves planning over a number of years, and its success depends largely on efforts to induce industrialists to establish new and diverse forms of industry in those Development Areas. An important part of that plan is the formation and development of trading estates on new sites, or, for a similar purpose, the conversion of large Royal Ordnance factories to make them suitable for various types of industry. In addition to that, however, indi-


vidual factories are being erected to meet the needs of industries induced to establish or expand their works in areas where unemployment might be severe though very much localised in extent. I am glad to report to the House that considerable progress has already been made, and the Supplementary Estimate provides for expenditure likely to be incurred before the 31st March largely on the acquisition of land and the preliminary costs of work-in-progress on the building of factories and the clearance of sites. As the scheme develops and the building of more factories is begun further estimates, of course, will be necessary, and for considerably larger sums. According to the present estimate a sum of £26,000,000 will be required over the next three years to cover those schemes which have already been approved, or which are in course of preparation, together with such further projects as it is estimated will be necessary if all the labour expected to be available in the Development areas is to be absorbed in regular employment. I hope, therefore, that the House will be prepared to grant us this initial sum to get on with this very vital job.

Mr. A. Edwards: May I take this opportunity to put one or two questions to the President of the Board of Trade? My constituency happens to be in a Development Area, but only after putting up a very stiff fight with his Department did we manage to get it included in the Development Areas. Naturally, once we succeeded in that battle we expected to get some of the benefits which the President has just outlined. Eventually his Department agreed to put up one of these factories—not a very large one, about 50,000 square feet. The President has told the Committee this afternoon that the purpose is to bring further employment and to induce new industries. To our amazement the new factory has been let to a company for temporary purposes, for a business which will continue for about two years. I suggest to him that to erect a factory of that kind and introduce a temporary business for two years is to destroy absolutely the purpose for which he is asking for these funds, which is to relieve unemployment. We used to be known as a Distressed Area. We have had two or three names since, and now it has become a Development Area, yet his Department has done nothing whatever to

help bring employment to the district. Not more than about 60 people are employed in this factory and I suggest that that is a complete misuse of the funds as he has described their purpose to-day.
The next question I would like to ask is: Are we to understand from what he has said, that the municipalities will be able to build these factories with moneys which they can get from his Department? If that is the case I am quite sure my municipality will be delighted to build some factories, because we have had to turn down offers for factories which would have employed many thousands of people because we have nowhere to put them, and there were no facilities available for us to provide for them. If we had had this 50,000 square feet, we could have introduced a permanent industry to employ many more people than are at present employed. I hope the President will say something about that.
Another point I would like to raise is the question of the trading estates. The Team Valley Estate was developed on the North-East coast when Jarrow was just a derelict city, as the hon. Lady described it. It was arising out of Jarrow and such towns on the North-East coast that the Team Valley Estate was built. That was entirely the wrong way to help Jarrow, because instead of taking industries to Jarrow or Middlesbrough they were taken away to provide employment at Gateshead. That was a grand thing for Gateshead, but it was not the purpose for which money at that time was being provided from the Distressed Areas Commission. I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that he should consider carefully whether, in developing some of these factory estates, good as they are, he is not doing a great injustice to some of the districts concerned. Setting up such estates takes employment away from the really distressed parts of the country.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I would like to intervene for a few moments because, as the Committee knows, this is a subject in which I take the greatest personal interest. I am sure that the best direction in which these funds can be expended is in the way of improving access and facilities to and on sites. I understand that most of this money will be used for that purpose. That is even more important than building factories.


If deep water and rail access can be improved industrialists will be willing to undertake the majority of the risk of erecting the actual buildings. If the President directs himself more particularly to that I think some of the other problems which have been mentioned will be avoided.
I think—and I have expressed this view on other occasions—that the distribution problem is one which we shall beat in the next three or four years. I believe, however, that the problem will be substantially solved. I think that the most difficult part which faces the President is to be very sure that he is not drawing into new industries, which to some extent will be exotic, the skilled labour which may be required soon for longer established industries. That is a difficult course for the President to have to pursue, but, generally speaking, such problems will be eased, and some natural selection will take place, if the majority of the funds are used towards improving access and facilities—such as gas—and so far as possible he should avoid building factories which tend to distort some of the local labour conditions that we should like to preserve.

Mr. McAllister: Before my right hon. and learned Friend replies I should like to know whether these trading estates will be planned in some relationship to new housing estates. If you have a good trading estate and a good housing estate together, and you add all the other community facilities, you have the makings of a very good town.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would like to bring one point to the notice of the Minister, and that is in connection with the sites in these Development Areas. One of the things that must strike anyone who has been to these areas is the very large number of derelict sites which are an offence to the eye, and which cause very appreciable psychological depression not only to those living there but to any employer or manufacturer wishing to set up a new factory. Not only that, but with the modern machinery of which we had a large quantity, through Lend-Lease, for the making of United States aerodromes in this country, the levelling of these sites would be a comparatively simple job and one which could be tackled now in a much cheaper and quicker way than anyone contemplated before the war.

I hope some consideration will be given to removing or levelling these derelict sites.

Sir S. Cripps: With regard to the factory mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), it was one which was allocated as a matter of urgency in connection with the housing programme in order to provide special expansion for a firm that was occupied in building temporary houses. When that work is completed that factory will be taken over for use by other people. That was the only place where we could find space, and we had to use it. With regard to whether municipalities can be financed out of these funds, the answer is "No." This is finance which can be supervised by the Government, and this can be done through trading estate companies. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the danger of drawing labour away from areas where it was surplus through having too few trading estates. We are trying to remedy that situation. One has in mind Jarrow, where we are placing a new estate in order to deal with the people there. As regards clearing these derelict sites, I am fully conscious of the psychological drawback of having derelict surroundings if one wants to get industrialists to occupy factory buildings. One of the worst pieces of derelict land I have ever come across is at Jarrow. I hope we shall be able to clear these sites at the same time as we are developing trading centres.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made the point that access and services to these sites were of great importance. I entirely agree; it is a matter to which we are giving attention. As to the other question he raised, the danger of drawing from long established industries labour which might be employed by them, that is a very difficult question of balance. We are trying to see that we do not overdo the introduction of new industries so as to upset the labour supply of the longer established industries, but at the same time we are anxious to introduce new industries, despite the feeling sometimes of people connected with older industries that they would rather be left alone. As to the association of the new trading estates with new housing estates, that is one of the matters into which we made careful inquiry as to whether labour will be available in near proximity to the trading


estate. Where it is possible to foresee a new housing estate close to a trading estate, that is, of course, an ideal arrangement from the point of view of the workers. All these matters we will keep well in front of us in trying to arrange the greatest convenience of the greatest number of works in the development of this scheme.

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £2,050,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for services in Development Areas.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £255,090, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc.; and sundry other services, including agricultural training and settlement schemes, the management and use of land acquired for forestry, a grant in aid of the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund and certain remanet subsidy payments.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): This Session of Parliament has maintained the old established custom and tradition in the indulgence which it has extended to all new Members making their maiden speeches. I feel sure, therefore, in making my first speech in the House from this Box, I can rely upon any indulgence which may be necessary. The Supplementary Estimate I am asking the Committee to approve is one of £255,090, the summary of which is clearly set out on page 19 of the Supplementary Estimate.
The first item thereof is a relatively small amount in connection with artificial insemination, and Members of the Committee may remember that the sum of £10,000 was provided under this head in the original estimate to enable grants to

be made to approved organisations providing a service of artificial insemination for cattle. Research is going on, the practical application of this new method is going on, and I think everybody on both sides of the House is more or less of one opinion in regard to this matter. As Members of the Committee will know, specific statutory authority in connection with these activities on artificial insemination is presently before the House in a Bill which I anticipate we may reach perhaps to-morrow, with the indulgence of Members opposite.
The second item of the Supplementary Estimate is for expenses in connection with former activities of the Commissioners for Special Areas. The House may remember under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, the Commissioners for the Special Areas have been wound up and the Treasury proposes to determine under Section 8 of that Act that the agreements entered into by the Commissioner with the Land Settlement Association, the Welsh Land Settlement Society and certain county councils should be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The next item is one of settlement grants.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what these figures represent? Is it a recurring loss?

Mr. Collick: No, it is merely, as I understand it, the new arrangement under that Act by which the expense which has to be met in this connection by way of grants comes directly out of the funds of the Ministry of Agriculture, rather than under the different arrangement as hitherto prevailed.

Mr. Hudson: Would he say what is the nature of the expenditure?

Mr. Collick: There is the capital expenditure of the Land Settlement Association in connection with its small holdings estates of £5,000 and a grant to the Durham County Council towards administrative expenses in connection with small holdings amounting to £4,500, and a land drainage grant in connection with the River Skerne, County Durham, of £5,500.
The next item is one of settlement grants, and the Committee will remember that a few months ago the Minister of Labour brought into operation a resettle-


ment grant scheme, applicable to all trades and occupations other than agriculture and fisheries, and confined to the restarting of non-disabled persons who were in business or work on their own account before joining any of the Services available under the scheme, and to the setting up on their own account for the first time, in suitable cases, of persons disabled by war service. The maximum grant to any person under this provision was £150. It has been accepted that agriculture should receive equal treatment in this matter with the other trades and occupations, and the Agricultural Departments have prepared a corresponding scheme of agricultural resettlement grants which will be limited, as regard the able-bodied, to those who were working on holdings on their own account before joining any of the eligible Services; and in respect of the disabled, to assisting them, in suitable cases, to set up on their own account for the first time, as under the Ministry of Labour scheme. The maximum grant proposed under the agricultural scheme is the same as that under the Ministry of Labour scheme, namely, £150. The details of the Agricultural Resettlement Grants are now being finally settled with the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury, and as soon as this has been done a public announcement about the scheme will be made. We anticipate that this should be quite soon.
The next item about operations under the Forestry Act is a relatively minor matter with which, I think, I need not trouble the Committee. We shall be pleased of course to reply to any questions of hon. Members and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to reply to any questions that may be put. The biggest item of the Supplementary Estimate is for the further grant-in-aid to the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund.

Mr. Hudson: Surely, although this is only £100, it is the first time it has occurred. This, presumably, is the first operation as a result of the Act which was passed this year, transferring from the Forestry Commission to the Ministry of Agriculture a considerable amount of land. I think we should all be interested to know how much land has been, transferred and what steps are being taken to run it, even though the aggregate total figure is only a token estimate.

Mr. Collick: It is the intention of the Minister to reply to these details, and I am sure the former Minister of Agriculture himself will appreciate that very much indeed. Therefore, I do not want to repeat what is going to be said by the Minister. With the sanction of the Committee I will go on to the next item.
In connection with the grant to the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund this is an amount of £150,000 and is supplementary to a grant previously made of £10,000. I am sure everybody on both sides of the House appreciates to the full the amazingly good job of work the members of the Women's Land Army did during the terrible days through which we have passed. I think on both sides of the House there will be unanimous approval of the amount that is going to be paid over in this way. The Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund was established in 1942. Its object was to raise a fund by which relief could be given to people who were in need and who during the war have been members of the Women's Land Army, or of the headquarters staff or the county staffs thereof. It is to be said to the credit of this organisation that they themselves have raised a very considerable sum of well over £100,000 for this Fund. The amount in the Supplementary Estimate is for a total of £150,000 in order that members of the Women's Land Army, when the time comes when they cease to be members and they have to get back to resettlement in civilian life, can be assisted in all sorts of way and particularly in hardship cases.
The Fund is under the jurisdiction of a Committee specially charged with that function. On that Committee there are representatives of the Women's Land Army, representatives of the National Farmers' Union and representatives of the Agricultural Workers' Unions. I am informed that the Committee are anxious that the ordinary rank and file of the Women's Land Army should be consulted and kept fully informed about the use of this Benevolent Fund, and a conference is to be called in the near future to which every county is to be invited to send a serving Land Army member and also an administration officer, to discuss the whole matter with the Committee of the Fund.
We therefore hope that the Committee will agree to this sum in order that assistance may be rendered to what the Com-


mittee will agree to be this very admirable purpose.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. York: I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his maiden appearance at the Box. I am quite sure that with the ready way in which he dealt with the complications which arose during his speech, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has a worthy assistant in the hon. Member. There are one or two questions supplementary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said upon which I should like information. My right hon. Friend the late Minister of Agriculture has indicated that there is some perturbation in the Committee upon this question of forestry. I feel inclined to doubt the wisdom of granting the Government £100 when we know that a vastly greater sum of money than that is required to carry out the policy which not only the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, but most of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, wish to see put into effect. The Forestry Act which was passed in the last Parliament was, I agree, a matter of minor importance in so far as actual forestry is concerned. It set up a machine upon which could be built future forest programmes. I hope that the Government are not going to be content in this Session with that machinery Bill, but are, in fact, going to go ahead with the forest programme which they know as well as we do is of vital importance to this country. If I can have an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that that policy is in contemplation, I shall feel more able to grant without further comment, and certainly without an adverse vote, this £100 which is now asked for.
The second point I wish to raise concerns the Women's Land Army. Here is a result of the unwillingness of the Government to make proper provision for the Women's Land Army. Instead of making that proper provision they are coming to the House to ask for a charitable fund to be set up in substitution for the proper right of the Women's Land Army. Although I welcome this Benevolent Fund, and indeed would wish it were more—I welcome it because it will be some small substitution—it is really a

poor reward for all the services which that gallant force has rendered during the war. I have had the privilege of employing Land Army workers, so I know what they are and what their work is. Although I cannot vote against a contribution from public funds towards the Benevolent Fund, I do so with an unwilling heart because I feel that this is not the type of reward I should like them to receive. If this appropriation had been a fund for gratuities which so many of us have asked for—

The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member cannot go into other matters. The question is whether the money is to be approved or not for this purpose, and not for some other purpose.

Mr. York: I was hoping. Major Milner, that your eye would be engaged elsewhere while I perhaps strained the Rules of Order. Seeing that you have so rightly ruled me out of Order I cannot take that matter any further. I would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider in his heart whether he is satisfied that this is all that the Government can do for the Women's Land Army.

Mr. Butcher: I would like, if I may, to congratulate the hon. Member who introduced this Supplementary Estimate, more on his personal performance than the content of the Estimate. That is because, as the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) has just said, this provision for the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund is a direct result of the failure of the Coalition Government to deal in a proper manner with the members of the Women's Land Army. What is the result? Instead of according to the members of the Women's Land Army a proper and adequate gratuity—

The Chairman: The question before the Committee is the approval of this sum for the purpose set out in the Estimate, and not whether it is desirable to do something else.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to you, Major Milner. All I would say is, let the Committee be quite clear that this £150,000 being granted is under no control whatever by this Committee as gratuities would be. Indeed, on page 20 we learn that the expenditure will not be accounted for in detail and that any


balance which remains will not be surrendered. That is a method of hit or miss, whereas other methods, which I may not specify now, would be far more accurate.
The principal matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is the very unsatisfactory provision being made for settlement grants. The total amount being granted is £50,000. I ask the Minister just how many men is it proposed to settle on the land with that sum? If the maximum grant of£150 is made the contribution of this Government to resettlement of workers on the land is, if my arithmetic is correct, in terms of 330 men. Or, if you like, we could examine it in terms of acreage. At £20 per acre £50,000 will only provide the capital for equipping 2,500 acres. This is not the way in which we are to resettle ex-Servicemen who have forsaken their own homes and served in the war, or to resettle men disabled by war service. We must have far more adequate and generous provision.

Mr. McEntee: I would like to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, not only on his speech but also on the Estimate he has presented. I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the scope of the Estimate. I am not touching on gratuities. I wish to know just what this sum for the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund is to be used for. Will it merely give small amounts to members of the Women's Land Army when they are leaving land work and may be in need, to provide them with, say, clothing, or, in cases of illness which compels them to leave the Land Army, will it just provide them with a small sum to help them over the illness, or will it go very much further and give to Land Army members an opportunity themselves to become farmers?
I know many of the Land Army girls, and I have heard some of them express a wish to remain on the land. If such a desire exists, having proved, as I think they have, their adaptability for agricultural work, an opportunity should be given them and some capital provided for them to establish themselves in that profession. I would also like to know if it will be used for the purpose of research, and for giving the young women on the land the opportunity to study at the agricultural colleges

matters associated with the land, or something better than just working as land girls in the cases where they have the capacity to undertake that work in some of its higher branches. I would like some more explanation as to the scope and extent to which this money is to be used. Is it to be just one grant of £150,000 or, if it is found to be not only necessary but useful during the time the money lasts, is it proposed to make it, or some sum that might be considered necessary, an annual grant in the annual Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I want to ask the Minister if he will make a point of seeing that the responsibility of his Department under the Forestry Act shall include the responsibility for what I might call the lighter industries connected with forestry, such as the making of hurdles. That case has always gone by default and this is an opportunity for me to make that plea.

7.45 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Of the questions which have been asked, I think the one that ought to be answered first is that which was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) because he knows the answer better than most people. The Bill that he negotiated through this House earlier this year determined that all land vested in the Forestry Commission should be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and that all land purchased by the Forestry Commission but not used by the Forestry Commission for a period should be managed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, this £100 is simply a token vote to enable the Ministry of Agriculture to manage any land hitherto vested in the Forestry Commission or subsequently purchased by the Forestry Commission for afforestation. The small sum of £100 is merely a token figure, and I am sure it is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has heard that expression. It is a small sum because it is a token figure.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I had assumed that this was a token figure, but surely the object of a token Vote is to give the Minister an opportunity of informing the Committee what he proposes to do.


This is the first opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman has had of explaining to the Committee the sort of machinery that he proposes to set up. My recollection is—I have not looked up the figures—that some 375,000 acres, or something of that order, belonging to the Forestry Commission had not been planted. That is the land out of which the right hon. Gentleman has to select for administration by his Department under this token figure, and some machinery has to be set up between his Department and the Forestry Commission to determine how much of those 375,000acres—assuming that is the correct figure—are required by the Forestry Commission for planting over the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years.
Part of the agreement which was made as a result of which the Bill was passed through the late Parliament was that the Ministry of Agriculture, if the land was transferred to it, would always ensure that the Forestry Commission had sufficient land available to carry out a steady development programme, so that it would not in any way be constrained through not being able to see far enough ahead. All that, I submit, is a matter on which we are entitled to expect the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the sort of machinery he has in mind, and how far he has gone in setting up that machinery, because this is a token vote.

The Chairman: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask a question. I am afraid he cannot make a speech.

Mr. Hudson: I am trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the extent of the information for which the Committee is entitled to ask, even at this early stage, when he is asking for a token Vote of £100. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of the keenness of the desire of hon. Members on this side for that information.

Mr. T. Williams: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for informing me of the keenness which hon. Members on the opposite side feel about afforestation. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been the last person to have expected me, on a token Vote for £100 for the purpose of managing land, transferred or purchased, to provide the Committee with a long dissertation on our future afforestation policy, and

that this would have been the worst possible moment for me to do so. I am sure that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Committee would expect me to explain fully, meticulously and in detail our future policy on this small token Vote. What the right hon. Gentleman seems to forget is that this £100 is not for afforestation policy in the sense that he is trying to suggest across the Floor of the Committee. The time will come—and I hope quite soon—when it will be my duty to explain to the House of Commons the machinery for future afforestation policy, but surely this is not the moment for such an explanation.

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry, but Hansard will decide in the morning. I did not think I had asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what his policy is going to be, because clearly I would have been out of Order on this Vote. What I am asking is, what machinery he proposes to set up in his Department of Agriculture for dealing with the land and administering it when it is surrendered by the Agricultural Commission.

The Chairman: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question in the Estimate is that a supplementary sum be granted for agricultural training and settlement schemes, the management and use of land acquired for forestry and a grant in aid of the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund.

Mr. Hudson: With respect, that is precisely the point of my remarks. The cost of administering land devoted to forestry is going to be under the Forestry Commission. It is not going to fall on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote. What is going to fall on that Vote is the management of agricultural land which is not required for forestry, or at all events not required at the present moment or in the next ten or 15 years. I want to know the Minister's agricultural policy on this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps the best reply I can give to the right hon. Gentleman is—and I clearly understand what he has in mind—that it is obvious that if the Ministry of Agriculture are to take over agricultural land, either purchased by the Forestry Commission in the past or more recently, the Ministry will need some machinery to care for that land while it still remains in agriculture. All I can


tell my right hon. Friend at the moment is that the same machinery which existed during the few weeks he remained in office after the passing of the new Forestry Act is in existence at this moment. To what extent it might be improved as larger areas of land are taken over and the responsibility becomes broader, I am afraid I am at this moment unable to say. It is obvious that if any future policy should involve the purchasing of millions of acres of land, clearly some steps will have to be taken by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman used to preside to set up machinery to deal with that situation. I am sure that he does not expect me to tell him at this moment what the future machinery is likely to be to deal with a very real problem. I hope he will appreciate that he has just extracted from me about as much as I can be expected to say on that point.

Mr. Hudson: About £100 worth.

Mr. T. Williams: One hundred pounds' worth at the first time of asking is about as much as one dare hope to get. Whatever is necessary when the new policy is announced to this House will be provided for.
The other question related to the grant to the Women's Land Army. The grant was determined by the late Government. I am merely asking the Committee to accept responsibility for the money that is now being handed over. It is not my policy or the policy of my right hon. Friend, but of the late Government. I am simply here this afternoon asking for assent to the money that has already been handed over by the late Government. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) asked one or two pertinent questions about what we were going to do in connection with the Women's Land Army, regarding those who want to settle on the land. The right hon. Gentleman on 16th May made this statement in the House:
For those who wish to make agriculture their career, specialised training in agricultural work suitable for women will be provided at Government expense. For girls of a suitable educational standard whose further education has been interrupted or prevented, courses of higher agricultural education will be provided under the Further Education and Training Scheme leading to posts in advisory, instructional and research services.…

For those who do not wish to make agriculture their career, free Government training under the same conditions as for the Women's Auxiliary Services and other war services will be available on their release from the Women's Land Army."—[Official Report, 16th May, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 2476.]
I am sure those who administer the Benevolent Fund will be ready and willing to make grants where necessary to members of the Women's Land Army who want to migrate to other industries, to cover the time when they will want training.
I think those are all the points which have been raised, except that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher). It was a suggestion that I should state with mathematical precision the purpose of this £50,000. I think he must have known that this is only a token vote, dealing with settlement of cases down to the end of March next. It is obvious that if any large number are desirous of returning to their former industry or holding, much more than £50,000 will be required. The sum asked for here is merely to help us down to March, 1946. If there is any excess in that period, obviously a further Supplementary Estimate will be called for. I should have thought he would have welcomed the fact that we are seeking to establish for those who went from the Services to agriculture the same conditions as for those who were associated with other businesses.

Mr. Butcher: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for assuring us that this money is not limited in the way that made it seem so poor. Would my right hon. Friend indicate why a token Vote of £100 has been introduced in one place and a token Vote of £50,000 in another?

Mr. Williams: I do not feel that there is any material difference in the two figures, so long as they are applicable to totally different services. It may conceivably be, as the hon. Member suggested, that £50,000 is not a lot of money, but it may be as much as we have spent so far.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £255,090 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and


expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases, of fish, etc.; and sundry other services, including agricultural training and settlement schemes, the management and use of land acquired for forestry, a grant in aid of the Women's Land Army Benevolent Fund and certain remanet subsidy payments.

MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORT SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour and the Caledonian and Crinan Canals; and annuities in respect of light railways; and for the reimbursement to railway companies of payments to certain temporary railway employees in respect of overlapping Income Tax payments.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): The Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained earlier this afternoon the arrangements which the Chancellor had made when introducing Pay-as-you-earn Income Tax arrangements with reference to civil servants. Certain classes of railway servants are in a similar position. The Chancellor's statement led to representations from the Railway Companies' Association with regard to those railway staffs, and the Chancellor agreed to reimburse the railway companies for dealing with this problem of overlapping payments. He asked that the cash payments to be made should normally fall to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue Department as a matter of Treasury convenience. It has been agreed with the railway companies that they should meet this cost and be reimbursed by the Ministry of War Transport. In regard to other items read out from the Chair, they were dealt with by the Committee which already granted this sum. The figure of £100,000 will meet this railway reimbursement up to 31st March next.

Major McCallum: Does this money cover only reimbursement of the railways or does it cover payments made in regard to the Caledonian and Crinan Canals?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: This deals only with the problem of the overlapping of Income Tax payments. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the figures in small type, he will see that the £49,143 granted in the last Session has met the items of cost of Holyhead harbour, the canals and the light railways.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I only want to add that the right hon. Gentleman has brought such an air of clarity into our foggy atmosphere on this difficult subject, that I would not like any words of mine to make it more obscure.

CLASS IV

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,168,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

The Minister of Education (Miss Wilkinson): The extra provision included in this Supplementary Estimate is required in the main for grants to local education authorities. The Financial Memorandum to the Education Bill envisaged the payment of a main grant to each local education authority based on the combined standard percentage for the area, that is to say, the total grants to the authority for 1938–39 expressed as a percentage of the total expenditure of the authority on education in that year. This combined standard percentage was to be increased by two in the first year and by one in each of the three subsequent years. Over the country as a whole, this would have given an average main grant of about 52 per cent. in 1945–46, increasing to about 55 per cent. in 1948–49.
The proposals of the Burnham Committee for increased rates of salaries to teachers were circulated to the constituent associations of local authorities last December, but the decisions of all the associations upon them were not known until nearly the end of last February. Meantime, the Ministry had to settle their Estimates for 1945–46 in January of this year.


with a view to their presentation at the normal date to Parliament. These Estimates took account of the estimated additional expenditure that would be incurred by local education authorities if the Burnham proposals were accepted by the authorities and approved by the Minister; but, as no decision on the proposals had at that time been reached by the authorities, they provided for grant on the expenditure of authorities, including the increased cost of teachers' salaries, at the rate envisaged in the financial memorandum, that is to say, combined standard percentage plus two.
When my predecessor decided in March to approve the new scales of salaries submitted to him by the Burnham Committee, it was also decided to relieve the increased financial burden thereby placed upon the authorities by increasing the rate of Exchequer grant over the whole range of the expenditure of the authorities, including salaries expenditure, to combined standard percentage plus five as from 1st April, 1945, when the new scales took effect. I hope I have made this clear, because under the Financial Memorandum this stage would not have been reached until 1948–49.
As this decision to increase the rate of grant was made subsequently to the presentation of the Ministry's Estimates to Parliament, no provision could be made for it in those Estimates. The increased provision made in the present Supplementary Estimate for grants to local education authorities is the estimated amount required to pay instalments amounting to 90 per cent. of the grant payable for the year, at the increased rate during the present financial year. We pay only 90 per cent. during the financial year, and 10 per cent. is carried forward as a balance for adjustment.
The extra provision provided for in the Supplementary Estimate under sub-head D. 1 is needed for direct grants by the Minister to bodies other than local education authorities and is required for two purposes. In the first place, it is required to enable the Minister to implement the settlement with the direct grant grammar schools. This settlement was not reached until after the presentation of the Ministry's Estimates for 1945–46 and could not, therefore, be reflected in them. The amount included for this purpose is £200,000, which represents the additional

cost of paying the increased grants to the schools during the present financial year. Broadly speaking the effect of the settlement reached by my predecessor—and he will appreciate that this Supplementary Estimate is in the nature of a hang-over from his régime—was to substitute an inclusive capitation rate of £16 for a number of isolated grants, such as former capitation grant, Sixth Form grant, examination grant and meals grant, and at the same time to make some allowance for general increased costs of running the schools. The settlement also included provision for ensuring that no qualified pupil would be excluded from a place in these schools on account of inability of his parents to pay fees.
I really attach very great importance to this provision, and I have recently amended the scale as laid down by my predecessor for the remission of fees so as to secure education free of charge to all pupils whose parents' income is below £7 10s. a week where there is one child in the family, with graduation where there is more than one child. That is to say, instead of beginning the grading of incomes for fee-paying purposes at as low as £5 10s. a week, it starts at £7 10s. Below that income there is no question but that the child gets a free place. Therefore, that £200,000 will, I think, be accepted by the Committee as very well spent.
However, if the Committee will look at the figures, there is another £30,000 to be accounted for. This is required for the preliminary expenses of the College of Aeronautics which is being established as a new experiment by the Ministry. It is being set up as a result of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which sat under that great expert in air design, Sir Roy Fedden, and was appointed by my colleague the present President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps) when he was Minister of Aircraft Production in October, 1943. The Government accepted it in principle and announced that fact on 18th October, 1944. My predecessor took immediate steps to secure the appointment of a governing body, and Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, who has recently retired from the post of Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force, accepted the chairmanship. I have had a long talk with Sir Edgar; he is not only a brilliant air expert but


a very keen educationist, and I think will be a remarkably energetic and vigorous driving force in this college. So keen is he that he has taken an aeroplane and gone round Germany collecting all the possible kinds of equipment he can find which will be useful to the college.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Perhaps some of it will be useful at Prestwick.

Miss Wilkinson: No doubt Prestwick will be able to use the results of the work Sir Edgar is doing. We have invited applications for the post of principal, and that is now being considered. Arrangements have been made with the Air Ministry to accommodate the college temporarily, so that we can get a start made early next year, at Cranfield. There is a Royal Air Force airfield there which will provide both residential and teaching facilities together with all the necessary facilities for flying. Certain preliminary expenses in connection with the establishment of the new college will accrue for payment during the present financial year. We have to pay the staff salaries, the rent of premises, and make some provision for equipment. We have included for this the very modest sum of £30,000. Next year when things are more settled we shall probably be able to use the more appropriate method of a grant-in-aid. I think that the experiment is very well worth while and justifies the money being expended upon it. It links up the universities, the Royal Air Force and the aviation industry, and we are looking forward to a great future in this post-graduate work in aviation. I am sure all of us here hope that its products will be used for civil aviation and not for another war.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure that we on this side would like to support the Minister in general in her request for certain sums of money under the headings she has described. The subject of the Burnham Committee is one which I always approached with some anxiety, owing to past experience which was not always very happy. But in this case I notice a continuity of policy which the right hon. Lady is carrying out and which I think is quite right. It is important for the local authorities to realise that the extra amount which is now granted as a result of this decision is, in the total, very considerable. In fact

if you look at the Supplementary Memorandum you will see, taking the total for the year, that is the full amounts estimated to be payable for the year excluding any balances of grant for previous years but including all balances of grant for the year payable after the end of the year, that the extra total for 1945 for elementary and higher education purposes amounts to an increase of no less than £23,169 over the 1944 total. I mention that figure because when I was responsible for these important matters I was always anxious that there should be enough money available to make the Act work.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Act for which he was responsible eliminated elementary and higher education?

Mr. Butler: That is quite right but I am using a technical term. Elementary and higher education is a phrase used in regard to Supplementary Grants and I am adhering to it for purposes of greater accuracy, but the hon. Member is quite right in saying that the words were abolished as regards the terms of the Act itself. That sum, over and above the 1944 total, is available to education authorities and I feel certain that it will be a very substantial aid to the authorities in carrying out the Act. I do not say that they will all be contented, and we on this side shall certainly do our best to help in any way we can to encourage the Government to provide as much money as possible to make the Act work. I think, however, that authorities ought to realise that this action on the part of the Minister will make it more easy for them to meet the liabilities they have to face, and in particular the liability for paying the extra on teachers' salaries which I consider is such a vital necessity in education today. I was very glad when I was able in March of this year to agree to the Burnham recommendations, because I feel certain that without well-paid teachers the meaning of education is very largely lost. I will not say any more on that main heading because it is a continuity of policy.
The Minister made some very important statements on the subject of the grant for secondary expenses. She referred to the revised capitation rate for the direct grant schools and spoke of my own action in regard to the amended scale for the remission of fees to parents. I should


like to support the request the right hon. Lady makes, and I think a very important consequence flows from her words. She has made it crystal clear to the Committee not only that the secondary regulations are o framed that under them any child, no matter how poor his parents, can go to a direct grant school, but also that as a result of her own action it is even easier for any child of any parents to go to a direct grant school.
I therefore hope that that indicates a realisation on her part of the importance of direct grant schools in the educational system as a whole. She has herself taken a notable step in that direction and I feel sure it will be possible now to say that over the length and breadth of the country, as a result of the Minister's wise and far-seeing action, it will be possible for the child of any parent to go to a school of that character.
I do not hold any particular brief for direct grant schools as such, but I have always made a great point that in the educational system of this country there should be a variety of schools and into that variety of schools every variety of child should be able to go. I believe the action taken by the Minister, which she has described on the Supplementary Estimate to-night, will make it all the easier for children to go into this type of school, among other types of schools, so that we can get variety in the sorts of education provided for the children of this country. I should like to express our gratitude to her for the action she has taken.
On the subject of the College of Aeronautics, I am glad the Minister has had a conversation with Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt. I would like to say from this side of the Committee what confidence we feel in the choice of the man in regard to this College. I feel that if he takes charge of this matter some of the doubts and anxieties which naturally arose when this great experiment was suggested will be dissipated. I am interested to hear that the College is to be established at Cranfield. I would ask that on a future occasion we should have from the Government an estimate of the difference in expenditure under the Government's proposal from that originally set out in the Fedden Committee's Report. There was some anxiety when the Committee reported that the estimates were very high—which indeed they were—and there

were some people who declared that these expensive experiments ought not to be indulged in during the immediate post-war period. I believe the method by which the Government are setting about the establishment of the College should dissipate anxieties.
I understand it is suggested that this expenditure should be undertaken by degrees and that experiments should be made, and that the Government will not set about the establishment of the final full scheme of the College until they have seen how it works in the preliminary stage. If that is the case, perhaps the right hon. Lady will say a word to indicate that I am correct. That would dissipate some of the anxieties expressed about setting up a costly experiment which might not work. In my view the method adopted under Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt is one which is likely to work. I think that doubling up with the R.A.F. at Cranfield and the use of the airfield is a much better scheme than some others that have been suggested. I visited an airfield near Plymouth and found it unsatisfactory. I think the suggestion of Cranfield is the best possible one.
I would like to ask the right hon. Lady a further question. Is it proposed to affiliate this College to a university in its original stage or at any stage? One advantage of the present site is that it would not be at an over great distance from a university and in the initial stage of the College it might be valuable to have some sort of affiliation. The experiment of putting an educational venture of this sort under a Government Department is one that we shall watch very closely. I was in favour of it myself, but it does mean putting a great responsibility upon the Government Department concerned. It is necessary, therefore, to take every possible step to keep in touch with the educational world as a whole, and particularly with the university world, so that the Department concerned may have their confidence. I feel that the steps taken so far will lead to that confidence being established.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I would like to endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) about this College, and particularly his last query. Earlier in the day we heard from the President of the


Board of Trade that it was contemplated to set up a college in connection with watches and clocks. The only experience so far of the Ministry of Education running any college—the Royal College of Art—was not very successful. I think the warning given by my right hon. Friend about these colleges coming directly under Government Departments should be borne in mind. I am not sure what the right method would be, but I thing a governing body, preferably connected with the universities or higher technical institutes, would be very much better than their coming directly under a Government Department.
I want now to move from the less controversial to the more controversial. With regard to direct grants, I do not quarrel with the change which the right hon. Lady has made. I want simply to ask a question. I gather from a recent reply that 45 applications for direct grant status have been granted, that 31 have been rejected, that 16 have gone independent, and that there are 140 applications still open for consideration. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Lady would give me some idea of how the sum of £200,000 is arrived at. Is it a general figure? Is it based on what is to happen to the 140 applications still open for consideration?
I come now to a matter which I think is very serious. I was staggered to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden. One would think he had learned absolutely nothing during the last few months. I was elected to this House partly because of the failure of the Burnham Committee to arrive at a proper scale for grammar schools. I have made speeches in 12 cities, including the university cities, and I can tell the right hon. Lady that there is deep concern, approaching disaffection, in the schools over this scale. If my right hon. Friend had got this scale put on to a proper basis he would have saved the situation, but at the present moment, for this reason and because of various other questions, which will be raised next Thursday, the grammar schools are in a very parlous condition.

Mr. Butler: If it is to be in Order to discuss the whole question of the Burnham Committee and my reasons for approving the scales, I must claim the indulgence of the Committee to give a full reply to the

hon. Member. It would be necessary for me to explain fully the procedure I had in mind for making it possible to review certain of the anomalies in grammar school salaries, and it would be necessary for me to put questions to the Government. I am just as interested in this as the hon. Member is, but I do not think it arises on this Estimate. If it is discussed I shall make a full statement and answer the hon. Member.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not wish to say any more on the subject. We are now dealing with the Burnham Scale, and I am entitled to express a view which has been widely put to me. I have had hundreds of letters expressing the feeling I have stated. I will say no more, except that many of the hopes which were expressed about posts of special responsibility have not been lived up to by the local education authorities during the last six months. I do not feel that the right hon. Ladyis really responsible; I do not make any criticism of her, because I think she is quite helpless. All I ask is that as soon as possible she will make an inquiry into how these posts of special responsibility are in fact being allocated by local education authorities. I hope that the right hon. Lady will revise these scales—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden promised to revise them after three years—when a suitable opportunity occurs, which I think will be in the lifetime of this Government.
In conclusion, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the setting up of the College of Aeronautics, subject to the one query about the method. I think the decision with regard to the £5 10s. and the £7 10s. is a wise one. I hope it also means that we are to have a decision about the remaining 140 direct grant schools. With regard to the grammar schools and Burnham Scales, I hope the right hon. Lady will look into this matter. Too much has been done for the Independent and primary schools from the point of view of the N.U.T., at the expense of the Grammar School.
The only schools that made it possible for poor children to go to the universities were the grammar schools, and 90 per cent. of those children went through those grammar schools. I shall continue with this fight until we get justice done. It is not on any other basis that I make this


appeal, and I hope the right hon. Lady will make her tenure of office memorable by agreeing to a change in the whole approach to this problem.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Sunderland: I rise to ask the right hon. Lady, in connection with the provision of money for the payment of increased salaries to teachers in technical colleges, which has recently been recommended, whether she is in a position to give instructions for this to be done, or to give the necessary authority to local educational authorities for themselves to pass the necessary supplementary estimates for this purpose. We are somewhat held up in the process of that part of our work.

Professor Gruffyd: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay) has already thrown an apple of discord into what promised to become an agapemone between the right hon. Lady and her predecessor in office. It was high time to say what he said, and I am going to content myself with merely crossing the ťs and dotting the i's of what he has said, because, in spite of what my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister has said in protest, it is a fact that £4,000,000 of these Estimates go towards working the Burnham Scale. This is probably the last opportunity we shall have of discussing this notorious Award.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am in rather a difficulty myself, and possibly I can clarify the position if I ask the Minister if the Burnham Scale has been approved by her since the original Act.

Miss Wilkinson: Yes, as a matter of fact it was approved yesterday.

Professor Gruffydd: I would move the rejection of this item altogether but, of course, that would not meet with the pleasure of the Committee, because it would embarrass teachers and local authorities, who already have a very grave prospect in front of them, especially in the grammar schools. All the experts in education—and by experts I mean experts, people who have been connected with education, either as teachers, pupils or administrators all their lives—from the university down to the primary

school, without exception, condemn this item of the Burnham Award. There is in the country a sense of frustration among teachers. There is a new kind of cynicism which I have not seen before in 40 years of experience, and a frank distrust of the promises made by any Minister of Education who may fill that office, but, coupled with that, there is always the hope that the present Minister of Education will be better than what they have feared.
I am not going to take up much time, but I would like to explain to the Committee that the most promising development in education during the last 30 years was the unprecedented and unexpected development of the secondary schools of this country. We hear a lot of discussion about public schools and the universities. Perhaps the Committee does not realise that, of all the Fellowships held in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, nearly 49 per cent. are carried by boys who passed through the free grammar schools of this country. This is the position the grammar schools came to before 1944. They were doing this service for the ordinary people, for you and me, for the working classes. Some day there will be a Socialist Government in this country, and when that Socialist Government comes, it will realise what a disservice the Burnham Award, and the alacrity with which the Minister of the time accepted that award, have done to secondary education in this country.

Miss Bacon: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when he speaks of secondary schools, he means secondary schools, or just one particular kind of secondary school—the grammar school?

Professor Gruffydd: I am speaking now of secondary schools, as defined by the Act of 1944, because I hope that the new secondary schools will become something like the old grammar schools and serve us in the same way as they did. But I do not think they will if they fall under the Burnham Award. I should like to remind the hon. Lady the Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon) of the experiment in America when they tried to settle the colour question. They said: "Let us settle it by calling everybody white."


Technical education is necessary, but technical education is not going to save this country, and it is not going to give the common people of this country what a humanistic education can give. A humanistic education can only be given through what is now called the grammar school. There must be a core of enlightenment in the country which can only come from a cultural education, and that enlightenment must inform the whole of our learning before any educational system can profit us.
I suppose that we must accept this recommendation to-night, but I, for one, accept it with the very greatest regret. I appeal to the right hon. Lady, who knows from her own experience what schools are, to consider very seriously what will be the repercussions of the acceptance of the Burnham Scale, not only on the grammar schools, but on all the schools in this country, and on the whole civilised life of Britain.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that the Committee has just listened to two speeches containing very extravagant and untrue references about the position of secondary education in this country, it is about time that somebody got up and made a protest about statements of this kind. I want to say this for the Burnham Award. Let us recognise the services it has rendered to education. It has established unity in the teaching profession for the first time because it has brought in a basic scale for all teachers. That is something which anybody who wants to see education in this country develop on proper lines should welcome. From lack of it in the past education has suffered, and it is very unfortunate that representatives of secondary teachers, who by no means speak for all secondary teachers, should try to undo some of the great work that has been done by the Burnham Award.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: That is completely untrue. The secondary schools have always welcomed the increase to the £300 minimum in the primary schools and have not said anything to the contrary.

Mr. Lipson: The burden of the criticism surely has been that the secondary school teachers have had a very raw deal under the Burnham Award because their basic scale is the same as it is in the

primary schools. The whole point of the value of the Burnham Award is in recognising that there must be unity in education. You cannot differentiate between the quality of the teaching in one school and that in another, but where there are special responsibilities there will be certain increases in pay in consequence. It is wrong and harmful to education to try and create a division in education and in the teaching profession, which I think the Burnham Award has gone a long way to remove. It will cause a great deal of concern to parents with children at secondary schools to hear that secondary education in this country is in a parlous condition. Why should it be in a parlous condition? Is it because admission to those schools is to be based on the ability of the child to benefit from the type of education and not on the ability of the parent to pay? The teachers are likely to have more promising material with which to work, and why? Because the fees have been abolished in secondary schools, should that create a situation in which you could say that the education at secondary schools would be in a parlous state?

Professor Gruffydd: That is an absolute travesty of what we have said. I agree of course with every word which the hon. Member has said about fees.

Mr. Lipson: It is not right to get up in this Committee and say, as was said by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), that the grammar schools of this country are in a parlous state. Those were his exact words. That is bound to cause concern among parents whose children are being educated there. There was nothing to justify that except that in his opinion some secondary teachers are not getting enough pay. They are getting more under the Burnham Award than they were getting before.

Professor Gruffydd: No.

Mr. Lipson: I speak as a member of an education authority, and I know that we have to make increased provision under the Burnham Award for the salaries of secondary teachers as we have for teachers in primary schools. A great deal of harm is done by unwise talk of this kind and I hope that this is the last that we are likely to hear of it. I ask the Minister whether he believes, and is prepared to say, that no child is excluded from a direct grant


school because of the financial position of the parent. I cannot see how that can possibly obtain, because there are only a limited number of places in any direct grant school available for those children who are not fee-payers. I understand that about 130 applications to become direct grant schools are still outstanding and I hope that every one of those applications will be turned down.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I apologise to the Committee for speaking again. What researches I made before the Debate have convinced me that this was no occasion on which to review in general the whole of the Burnham Scale. As, however, discussion has taken place on the subject, it is necessary for me, quite extempore, to put some questions to the Minister before the hon. Lady replies. Many of us who were responsible with regard to the Burnham Scale of salaries had to take a very serious decision. The suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) that that decision was taken in a spirit of hurry or rush or without due thought is as much a travesty of the facts as are extraordinary and wild statements about secondary education in this country.

Professor Gruffydd: The word I used was "alacrity," and alacrity generally means eagerness.

Mr. Butler: This decision was taken after most sober thought and sober reflection.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman not responsible for the exact way in which these committees were constituted? These committees having been constituted as they were, was this not inevitable?

Mr. Butler: We have had a Debate before in this House on this subject and I do not think it is suitable to have it again in Committee, though it would be permissible to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be inadvisable and undesirable to discuss that matter.

Mr. Butler: The matter has been fully debated here and any one who studies your Ruling will see that it is very sensible. In view of the turn that the Debate has taken and the very natural interest of those of us on

this side of the Committee that all those things should work out for the best, I hope that the point in the Debate on the Burnham Scale in this House in the last Parliament will be examined by the right hon. Lady with a view to seeing whether she can keep an eye on the working out of the scale in practice. I will not go into these proposals in detail because they can be found in the columns of Hansard, but there was a point put by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), namely, the manner in which local education authorities allocate appointments of responsibility and the manner in which domination is given to headmasters and mistresses of the smaller grammar schools, who I consider under the formula of the Burnham Scale were likely to suffer. Very often the headmaster of the smaller grammar school did not get the increase he would have got if the scale had been in detail. If the hon. Lady will examine the proposals I made at the time, and at some future date give an assurance that she will do her best to watch the scale in the interest of graduate teachers, then we on this side of the Committee will feel that the interest of graduate teachers are being watched. Had I known that this subject would be raised I would have put it in my speech. I hope that the right hon. Lady will say that it is her desire that the interest of all types of teachers will be watched by the present Government.
Another matter that I did not expect would arise was the question permitted to be raised by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities, and that was the question of the direct grant lists. I had not thought that this was a question on which to raise the whole conception of the direct grant list. If it is the occasion to raise that I want to make it clear that we on this side of the Committee attach the utmost importance to the direct grant list remaining substantially as before. It might be the case that certain schools feel that the aid and status afforded by the Act are so unsatisfactory that they desire to leave the direct grant list. There may be other schools, but I do not think there are many, who may desire, for a variety of reasons, to come on the direct grant list, but however it may be, we on this side of the Committee would view with consternation any policy which develops with the view to depriving the direct grant list of


some of its most distinguished members. We regard them as having an important contribution to make to the educational system of this country and we would like an assurance from the right hon. Lady that it is no part of her policy to destroy the direct grant schools of this country. I couple that with the statement I made in my previous speech that it is surely reasonable, now that the Regulations have been made and the scales revised by the right hon. Lady, that, when they are so acceptable, they should be permitted to furnish that education which they can provide. I apologise to the Committee for having been obliged to speak again.

Miss Wilkinson: I would like to deal first with the points which have been raised and to deal with the speech of my predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) at the end. I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee. With regard to the anxiety of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Lindsay) about watches and clocks, it will not in any case mean a separate college, but is to be linked up with one of the existing polytechnics. With regard to the direct grant schools and how the figure of £200,000 was arrived at, I may say that it was reached on the basis that the number of pupils in direct grant grammar schools during the present financial year would be, roughly, the same as in the previous year, and that, whatever ultimate decision was readied, it could hardly affect the period of the Supplementary Estimate.
The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) spoke of the growing cynicism among graduates because—and this is what it really amounts to—there is no promise that this class of teacher will be maintained at the level which they desire. I think that was one of the most cynical observations that could be made about any set of people engaged in such fine work, and I hope that, when he see sit in Hansard, he will see that—

Professor Gruffyd: When I read it in Hansard, I think I will find that I used, not the word "graduate", but the word "teacher."

Miss Wilkinson: No, it was not teachers the hon. Member was concerned

about. Let us get it perfectly clearly; that is to say the teachers in what were previously known as secondary schools and are now known as grammar schools. What really has happened in the matter of these teachers is that we are no longer regarding teaching in primary schools as being done by an inferior kind of teacher. We think that as good, as fine and as highly-trained teachers should be given to the children in what were called elementary schools and are now called primary schools as to any schools. We are regarding education not as being separated into different boxes, but, now that we are trying to eliminate class distinction, at any rate, in State education, we are looking at all teachers as one body, whether teaching in primary, modern, technical or grammar schools, and, if any extra pay is to be given, it is to be made for a special responsibility.
I would like to remind hon. Gentlemen who are getting so indignant about the way the graduates are treated by the Burnham Scale that the graduates' associations have expressed appreciation and gratitude for the way in which Sir Frederick Mander, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, dealt with their case, and that, really, the actual amount arrived at by the Burnham Committee is very little different from the amount actually asked for by the graduates' associations. This is only a determination to keep up an artificial distinction between teachers, in which I myself have no interest at all.

Professor Gruffydd: Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether in her opinion there is no difference between a person with emergency training of one year who never passed the school certificate examination and the person with first-class honours?

Miss Wilkinson: Far be it from me, as the mere Minister of Education, to start lecturing a Professor of Logic. If the hon. Member is going to be beaten on argument and is going to drag in everything he can think of in order to try to bolster up a case, that is really not good, even for a representative of the primary schools, but, of course, the universities are a little different. I can assure him that we are really pursuing a very definite policy in this matter and that we are anxious that teachers should regard themselves as a whole, as a great united body, working for the good of the


people, whether in nursery school or university, and, therefore, what I am concerned about is that we should consider, as we have done, our basic rates for our teachers and make provision for cases of special responsibility and special work. I want to make it clear that we are not regarding these Burnham Scales as "writ on tablets of stone." It is perfectly clear that, after such long consideration, with every kind of body being consulted that had a right to be consulted, you cannot be altering the Scales very often or you would never come to any finality at all, and that is the reason for the three-year limit with regard to the Burnham Scale. I will, however, tell the hon. Member for the English Universities and the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, that I will keep this matter in mind because we are working on a new Act and dealing with a lot of new problems where the old ideas will not do, not necessarily because they were wrong, but because they have now to be fitted to a new situation. I will bear them in mind and have a look at the matter from time to time, and I can assure the hon. Members for the Universities that the teachers concerned always bring up such matters as they feel rather dissatisfied about, and, of course, it is always open to them to do so.

9.0 p.m.

If I may leave that point for one moment and come back to this other question of direct grant schools which has been raised both by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and the hon. Member for the English Universities, the actual figures may interest them. There have been 232 applications to come on the direct grant list, 45 of which have been granted, 31 have been rejected, and 156 are under consideration. I would point out that all these applications have had to be considered since I became Minister because my policy with direct grant schools is not the same as that of my predecessor. I make no apology for that. There has been a General Election and I think that on this matter of direct grant schools the party which I represent does not see eye to eye with hon. Members opposite. I have therefore taken this matter into very careful consideration, and I have laid down certain lines on which I wish these applications to be considered. That, naturally, has had to slow

down a process which would have gone more quickly if it could have gone straight along on the lines on which it was being dealt with previously. However, that delay is ended now and we are working on the new lines—

Mr. Lindsay: rose—

Miss Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish the point, and then he can ask what he likes. I want to make it perfectly clear that, having looked at the matter very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to sweep away direct grant schools altogether by the side-line of refusing to accept their applications and then, if they went independent, refusing to allow them to increase the fees which is the only way by which they could go independent—which I could do in my capacity as Commissioner for Educational Charities. I am very anxious to retain variety in education and room for experiment in education but, on the other hand, when this Parliament has decided that there should be as far as possible free, secondary education, then I regard it as my duty as Minister of Education to carry out that decision as far as is possible. I am aware—and I said it in my opening speech—that these direct grant schools are far more open to the children of the homes with smaller incomes than ever they have been.
I want to make it clear that under the Regulations 25 per cent. of the places are absolutely free, and 25 per cent. are available to the local education authority who can claim those places and pay the fees of the children. That is to say, 50 per cent. of the places in a direct grant school are absolutely free as far as the parents are concerned. With regard to the remaining 50 per cent. it is now not possible to buy a place in a direct grant school for a child who does not reach the required standard. Every place of those 50 per cent. fee-paying places must be given on merit by examination, and if the child of a man, however wealthy, fails to reach the required standard, then a place cannot be found for that child in that direct grant school. Therefore, because of the democratisation of these direct grant schools, I felt that a certain number of them should be retained in order to provide for that variety of education which we require.
In the case of schools of very oldtradition—cases of schools that have reached a very high standard in teaching technique and in schools that have various other claims to special consideration, I have been prepared to give direct grant status, but I see no reason whatever why many of the rest should not become free secondary schools under the local education authority.

Mr. Lindsay: May I ask one question? My right hon. Friend said that so far 156 cases had not been settled. I mentioned 140 while 16 have become Independent. Could she say whether that is so? Looking through the list published last week I see that in the first group that have been recognised there is a very large number of Roman Catholic schools. It may be an accident and I have no feeling about it one way or the other, but I want to know if it is the policy of the Government to recognise these denominational schools as direct grant in advance of some other principle.

Miss Wilkinson: There is no special action being taken with regard to denominational schools. As a matter of fact, one of the largest Catholic schools, when the income limit was raised from £5 10s. to £7 10s. for residuary places, has decided that there is no financial point in remaining on the direct grant list. With regard to the 16: they have elected to go independent. It still means that they are under consideration, because they cannot just go independent because they say they will. Many of these have an endowment, and as I am Commissioner for Educational Charities, I have to decide whether I will allow them to increase their fees sufficiently to get enough revenue to go independent. That is the reason for the difference in the figure.
With regard to the Burnham Technical Salaries Report, that has been before me during the last few days and I signified my acceptance yesterday. We are circulating this to local authorities immediately, and it will be in their hands within the next few days. With regard to the Aeronautical College, the right hon. Gentleman opposite expressed the position perfectly when he said we were regarding this expenditure as largely experimental. We have not provided for a vast sum to be laid out at once. Clearly, from every point of view, this is a very

experimental project. We feel that this very modest grant at the beginning will give us experience for going further, when we shall probably ask Parliament for more money. With regard to the point of relationship of the estimate of the Roy Fedden Report, and the Government's own Estimate, that is one of the problems which we have before us, and on which I am keeping an eye.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Lady has just made a serious statement about direct grant schools. We on this side take grave exception to the policy she has outlined, and I propose to take this opportunity of putting several further questions to her. The Opposition is not content to let the matter rest where she has stated it, and we shall take other occasions to raise the question more fully. When I was Minister of Education I received, in company with my colleagues of the Coalition Government, certain deputations of great weight and importance from the schools.
The points I want to put to the right hon. Lady are these. When I was Minister of Education I received in company with my colleagues of the Coalition Government certain deputations of great weight and importance from the schools concerned. I accept at once that the right hon. Lady is a free agent. We have had a General Election, and she is entitled to carry out what educational policy she likes. Two of these representative deputations of the Governing Bodies Association and others came to see me and certain undertakings were given by which I shall stand. These undertakings were that the direct grant list shall remain substantially as at present. That was accepted under the Coalition Government, and under the general aegis of the Act which I thought up to this moment would have general agreement.
I cannot say what a shock the right hon. Lady's statement has given me tonight, and what a very adverse impression that will make throughout the whole world of education. Here is the first example of departure from that confidence which I hoped we should have engendered. I am not going to get unduly heated, because she is entitled to carry out the policy which she thinks best—that is the law of the land—but can she tell me what are the conditions which she has laid down for these direct grant schools to fulfil? She has given a general state-


merit to-night about them which I think is very unsatisfactory, because we, on this side of the House, cannot gain any impression of what the standards are which she is going to lay down. I think before we allow this Supplementary Estimate to go, I should like to have a statement of the conditions which these direct grant schools are expected to fulfil. Secondly, I should like to have an assurance that the remainder of the schools on this list which number some 150, whose fate has got to be decided, will be given the utmost consideration. It seems to me that the right hon. Lady is obsessed with the idea of the free nature of education. She should, in my view, adhere to what she has already said in her speech, that a variety of schools, provided that children of parents however poor may go to them, is in the interests of education in this country. The direct grant school has a very notable past and won a very great tradition. It is not a school designed to keep out children of the poor, and if she thinks that is the object of the direct grant school she is obsessed with an entirely wrong idea.
I, myself, when drafting the secondary school grant regulation took particular care to see that the children of parents however modest could go to these schools. The particular contribution of the direct grant school is that it gets its grant direct from the Ministry and is able to have a wider scope than the purely local school under the local education authority. There are many schools in this country which get the direct grant, the parents of whose children are just as modest as those of the aided schools, which rejoice in very ancient traditions which enable them to draw pupils from a wider scope than you could under the single education authority. These schools will envisage with dismay the statement made by the right hon. Lady to-night.
There is another feature of these schools to which the members of the Governing Bodies Association and others attach great importance, and that is that these schools form a link in the educational system of this country as between free and independent schools and the big boarding schools and the State system. If her policy is to result, as it is clearly tending to result, in some of these schools going independent, does she think she is

going to achieve the linking up of types of education in this country, which has always been the ideal of us on this side of the House? It is not our idea to create a gulf between the educational system, between the dependent school, on the one hand, and the aided school on the other. Our idea is to have all schools linked up together so that there are not these great gulfs. I believe the result of the right hon. Lady's policy will 'be to create a gulf between one kind of school and another which will be a far greater social embarrassment to this country than the social embarrassment she, quite sincerely, is seeking to avoid.
I therefore ask her to think very carefully when she is reviewing the rest of this list, because I believe that in her policy lie greater seeds of social disruption and danger than in the policy of permitting direct grant schools to continue, and making it possible for them to take the children of parents however poor. We on this side of the Committee are far from satisfied with this surprising statement we have heard. I had no idea I was going to hear that to-night. We shall take another opportunity of raising the matter, and I hope that meanwhile the right hon. Lady will give us some reassurance in answer to the points I have made.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: May I say one thing in answer to the right hon. Gentleman? I am still more astonished to have heard his latest speech. There is, as he said, a change in Government but I would like to remind him that the damage which has already been done to the grammar schools of England by the interpretation of this Act may be even worse than anything that may be done by changes in direct grant schools. There are Members of the Labour Party who will agree with me about the damage that has already been done through the administration of the Regulations of the Act for which my right hon. Friend was responsible. It is not the Act itself. It is in the day-to-day interpretation that we shall get differences. I am glad to see many of the approaches which my right hon. Friend is making to this problem. I do not think that by enlarging from £5 10s. to £7 10s. she is doing that damage. The moment that certain decisions were


taken by the last Government it was inevitable that many direct grant schools would go independent, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot fasten on to the new Government something for which he was responsible. I prophesy that it will not be 16 but 26, 36, 46 which will go independent before we are finished. It is now legal in this country to pay anything from £50to £250 for a child's education, but impossible for people who wish to make a modest contribution to their children's education. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect everything to go beautifully and smoothly as a result of the Act. We shall see some strange things happening, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis) said in his brilliant maiden speech last night.

Miss Wilkinson: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not continue the Debate. It is perfectly clear from what the right hon. Gentleman says that it is a fundamental difference with which we are faced. We cannot go on as if the old Government were still in being. While I would be willing to pay the right hon. Gentleman my tribute, and I do, for the 1944 Act, which will go down as a great Act, he has himself said that a great deal will depend on the spirit in which that Act is administered. I have given a general outline in very general terms because we were not expecting this particular Debate to go into these particular details. But I am perfectly prepared to face the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends opposite in any Debate, whenever they are prepared to raise the matter, and to discuss the whole question and defend my policy. I do not think that at this late hour, with so much still before the Committee, it is the moment to go into it.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,168,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

CLASS III

POLICE, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £212,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary; the cost of special services, grants in respect of Police expenditure and a grant in aid of the Police Federation in Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I do not think I should trouble the Committee very long with the Estimate which is now before us. The position is that an additional provision of £212,000 is necessitated by the transfer as from 1st July this year of this expenditure on the Police War Reserve, etc., from full reimbursement to a grant-aided basis consequent upon the change of status of the Police War Reserve. The position in a nutshell is that as from 1st July this year we have reverted to the position whereby the State meets 50 per cent. of the total expenditure on police services. Hon. Members will be aware that at the outbreak of war the Government recognised that special defence services would have to be afforded by the police and so the Police War Reserve was set up, and the full cost of the Police War Reserve was met by the Exchequer. The reversion to the status quo as it was before the war necessitates this additional expenditure, but hon. Members will be comforted by the fact that this actually means a saving, as there will be a saving to the Exchequer in so far as they have not now got the expenditure they would have had upon the Police War Reserve.

Commander Galbraith:: I would like to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. He spoke of a saving in regard to the Exchequer, but in fact surely what happens here is that while the Exchequer saves the ratepayers in Scotland have to meet the other half of the cost. Perhaps I could have an answer to that.

Mr. McKinlay: Before we have a reply, I submit that the reimbursement is going to cost more. As a member of a local authority, I would like to know what consultations took place before this departure was agreed to. What I do know is that the Police War Reserve,


which is much below the physical standard of the police force, has been parked on local authorities and local authorities have been asked to meet the cost. The position of the local authorities is that until such time as the necessity for the Police War Reserve has passed the Government ought to bear the whole cost. Hundreds of police who are serving in the Forces are having their wages supplemented by the local authorities, and this additional charge of £212,000, which when spread over all Scotland possibly does not come to very much, is a considerable burden in a city like Glasgow where the police force runs into thousands of men. We ought to get a little more information than just a mere statement that the Treasury are going to save and the local ratepayers are going to pay. That is no justification for putting the cost of the Police War Reserve on to the local authority, and I hope we shall get some information on that point.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I briefly put a question and also perhaps make an appeal? The Association of County Councils in Scotland approached the Government with, I submit, a very good case that this expenditure should not be transferred to their shoulders from the Imperial Exchequer. The Government said that there was no likelihood of their departing from that decision to transfer the cost of the Police War Reserve to the local authorities, subject to the 50 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, I think that at this stage, when the local authorities are making up the salaries of policemen serving in the Forces, local authorities are involved in a very considerable expense—admittedly a declining one, as the police return, but nevertheless very considerable, amounting to some thousands of pounds in Perthshire—which I do not think should be placed on their shoulders.
The hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench said that we had now reverted to the previous situation. That may be so from the point of view of the Government, but not from that of the county councils who are faced with this extra expenditure, which is not a reversion, as stated by the Government. I would ask most sincerely, and in no carping spirit, that the Government will relent and will allow his expenditure to remain with the Exchequer and not be

put upon the local authority. It all comes out of the pockets of the people.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not know what sort of consultation took place, but I know that the Fife County Council have been continually making representations to the Government upon this point. Like other local authorities they have had to carry the burden of these war reserve policemen. Suddenly to be told that the Government payments are to be cut down by 50 per cent. without consultation does not seem to be good enough. I consider that while the war reserve policemen are retained the Government should meet the full cost. That is the view of the Fife County Council—I cannot say that all the members are in agreement—on the situation and on the demands that I make. Four of us were going to see the Scottish Office before the Recess, but it was put off until after the Recess.
Somehow or another it is rather difficult now, because this Estimate has come before us before they have had a chance of meeting at the Scottish Office to discuss the matter. The meeting is still in abeyance. Before we can meet at the Scottish Office we shall have to meet ourselves to come to an understanding; nevertheless, I am for the position of the county council. It is only right that, so long as they are burdened with the responsibility of maintaining the war reserve constables, the cost should be met by the Government. I do not know why the Government want to be so generous as to take off only 50 per cent. Let it be one thing or another. Either the local authorities pay, or the Government. We should hear some reason from the Government for this decision and why there had been no consultation before the decision was arrived at.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: So that the Joint Under-Secretary should be under no misapprehension, let me say that I warmly support what has been said by my neighbour the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). There is an all-Scotland and all-party demand on this matter. We have heard from Perthshire, and the ancient Kingdom of Fife has joined in demanding from the Scottish Office reconsideration of this matter. There is a strong technical argument in favour of the local authorities' view. I do not propose to advance that argument—it is somewhat technical—but I would ask the Under-Secretary to bear in mind that


there is a strong argument which could be advanced. I ask him, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to give an undertaking that he will invite the county councils to meet him, so that he and his officers may re-examine this matter. If he would give that assurance we would be temporarily satisfied, and the meeting to which my hon. Friend referred might not be necessary.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: The Committee must be under the impression, after the speeches we have heard, that I have dropped a bombshell this evening. That is not so. The Government intimated in March this year to the police authorities in Scotland that the pre-war position would be reverted to at the end of hostilities in Europe. There were consultations, I understand, at that time, but it was agreed to postpone the date of reversion until July. We now come before the Committee to ask for some extra money for the Scottish Office to enable us to meet our new commitments for we have new commitments under this arrangement. Let us look at the position. Is it that we are insisting on the local authorities carrying police forces for which they have no need? Are we insisting on their carrying forces that are only required for war purposes? The position is that the police forces throughout Scotland are doing exactly the same job now as they did before the war. If there are some hon. Members who think that the Government ought to pay more than 50 per cent. of the cost of such services, there will be other occasions on which to make such an argument but we would not be in Order in discussing that now.
One would gather the impression this evening that some police authorities are carrying a force in excess of their needs. Let me give hon. Members an assurance that if any police authority in Scotland should make a submission to me that they are carrying numbers in excess of their needs, and ask permission to pay off part of their personnel, we will readily consider what can be done, and I think that, in all likelihood, we will be able to meet them. Coming back to the question of representation, since I took office no hon. Members and no local authority have asked to be allowed to state a case to me. In the circumstances, am I not entitled to

assume that this reversion to the pre-war arrangements was generally acceptable, or, at least, that all opposition to it had more or less been got rid of in the consultations that took place during the life of the Coalition Government?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not deny that at least the Fife County Council approached him by correspondence on this matter with all the pungency which generally accompanies letters from that council?

Mr. Fraser: I do not deny that we have from time to time had correspondents, and I have courteously replied to them and told them what the position was, but hon. Members have asked if I would consider delaying this matter until consultations have taken place. I say that I have had no request up to now for consultations. I very much doubt whether there is anything to be done under the circumstances. This reversion to the pre-war arrangements was carried through some time ago, and it is as a result of this reversion that the Scottish Home Department have to find some additional moneys to enable them to meet their new commitments. That is the only matter that is before the Committee at the present time, and I very much hope that the Committee will give me the £212,000 necessary.

Mr. McKinlay: I am very sorry, but it is not as simple as that. I have always been suspicious of consultations. If the big chief in Edinburgh sends for local authorities, they can talk for hours or for weeks. My hon. Friend is making a mistake if he assumes that anyone suggested that police forces were over strength. Our complaint is that they are under strength and we are paying more money for them. That is the trouble. My point is that those who paid for the Police War Reserve should have paid for them until, the need for Police War Reserve strength was abolished altogether. That could only be when the policemen who are now on war service come back and bring the forces up to strength. Again I say I do not like the word "consultation." With a weaker police force local authorities are paying out more money. I admit that some areas are only rated to the extent of 18s. in the £ and that is nothing at all; it can go higher; but, of course, the tap will ran dry some


time. They say we have returned to the status quo, but they are asking the local authorities to pay 50 per cent. for the services of a Police War Reserve below the standard.
I will tell the Committee something else. The regular policemen are dissatisfied because the Police War Reserve stepped in on conditions at which it had taken the regular policeman years to arrive. I am not saying that they should be in a worse position. Those who created the Police War Reserve should have kept them until such time as their services could be altogether dispensed with. I know it is only a question of £212,000, but these things have a habit of accumulating, and I feel that we must make our protest—not that it will have any effect. The local authorities would be much better served if active steps were taken to have regular policemen returned to police duties. The wave of crime sweeping through the country makes it essential that regular police forces should be brought up to strength at the earliest possible moment.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: One other question arises out of the Supplementary Estimate. Why was no mention made of the women's police force? I understand that now the full-time members of the women's police force have been transferred to the local authorities. Hitherto the moneys paid on that account came direct from the State, but now they come partly from the local authorities and partly from the State, and I should have thought it should have been mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £212,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary; the cost of special services, grants in respect of Police expenditure and a grant in aid of the Police Federation of Scotland.

Public Education, Scotland

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £568,975, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for public education in Scotland, including certain grants in aid of the

Education (Scotland) Fund, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a grant in aid.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: This requirement is consequential, as hon. Members will be aware, upon additional provision required for grants to local education authorities and other bodies in England and Wales. Under Section 21 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, a sum equal to 11/80ths of the amount of any such provision in England and Wales is payable to the Education (Scotland) Fund. As in England and Wales, our education costs in Scotland are on an ever-increasing scale. I am happy in the thought that I am unlikely to have all the controversy over teachers' salaries that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education had only a short time ago. We have a proposal increase in teachers' salaries coming along very soon. The Regulations have not been made and accepted by the House as yet, so there cannot be any argument about them, but the additional expenditure we estimate we will need to meet in connection with these increased scales will have to be found out of this sum. I do not think it is necessary at this late hour for me to go further into the matters for which we have to provide out of these moneys.

Commander Galbraith: I rise to assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no opposition whatever from this side in regard to this item. We welcome it very sincerely as affording some small measure of relief to the ratepayers of Scotland in regard to the very high costs of education. I would like to say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope he will see to it that the generosity of the Government goes even further in the future.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the date on which the new scales of salary become operative?

Major McCallum: The Joint Under-Secretary of State mentioned that this sum is required to pay for various things in connection with education in Scotland. I am sure he has already had time to learn that in the constituency which I represent there are various educational difficulties on which the assistance of the State is required. I refer particularly to the question of grants-in-aid to local authorities to


enable them to get children to school. In the remote areas which form so large a part of the county of Argyll, the question is becoming ever more impossible for the local authorities. Almost daily I receive letters from agricultural constituents explaining that they are unable to get their children to school, and when I approach the local authorities, they say they are very sorry they are unable to do anything, because the money is not available. I hope that as a result of this increased amount, the Scottish Office will be able to increase the grants to local authorities for this purpose.

9.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: My unfamiliarity with the intricacies of the procedure we are going through now may prompt me to put a question which should probably be put to the Under-Secretary at some other time. If so, I apologise in advance, but I want to know whether in the sums for which he is asking there is any provision made for the education of the blind. I am sure that the Under-secretary has received the same report of the committee inquiring into this matter—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am afraid the hon. Member cannot go into that question at the moment.

Mr. McKinlay: I cannot find fault with the sum, but I do not understand the arithmetic of those who make the allocations to the local authorities. I have in front of me figures which show a percentage increase on the previous grants of 135 per cent., and in another county the percentage increase is 162 per cent. There is one with the startling percentage increase of 321 per cent., but for the county that I represent, Dumbartonshire, for some obscure reason, the increased grant amounts to only 44 per cent. As I say, I do not understand the arithmetic or the method adopted in making these allocations. In the county of Dumbartonshire we have an education rate of 5s. in the £, and it would appear that if a county were ahead in paying salary scales before it was compelled by law to do so, and rated its community for the purpose of paying scales which have now become the legal scales, prior, and long

prior, to them becoming operative, when it comes to allocating the grant in aid, that county is not only not thanked for what it has done in the past, but suffers a reduction in the amount of money made available. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could give us some information as to how the allocations are made.
For instance, Stirlingshire's old grant amounted to £12,635, and it is to be increased by £17,145. The Dumbartonshire grant was £11,400, and it is to be increased by £5,122. That sort of arithmetic gets us all staggered, and, as I have said on many occasions, I would abolish algebra from the curriculum of Civil Servants because they get people into more trouble with the way they allocate money than enough. I am sure the Under-Secretary will have a complete answer to that. The county I represent wants an answer, and I am quite satisfied that, after to-night, a number of other authorities, having heard of this increase, will want an answer as well. I would suggest to the Under-Secretary that he gives us the fullest possible information as to the methods of allocation so that local authorities may be satisfied that no person is stealing a march on them.

Mr. Gilzean: I would like to ask the Under-Secretary if it is the intention of his Department to continue the somewhat invidious practice of paying two different scales to independent schools and to non-fee-paying schools. At the present time a non-fee-paying school is paid on a teacher-pupil basis, £125 for the teacher and £5 for each pupil. That means a grant of £325 in a class of 40 children, whereas in the independent schools the grant is a direct grant per pupil on the basis of £10 per head, which gives the independent school £400 for 40 pupils as against the £325 which the non-fee-paying school receives. Why do these independent schools get grants paid directly to them instead of receiving them through the local authority?

Mr. Gallacher: I want to raise the question further with the Minister, but before doing so I wish to say that it seems to be natural at a very late hour that Estimates affecting Scotland, and particularly affecting education, should come up. The Scottish Education Bill came on at a very


late hour and consequently was not discussed. Now at this very late hour we get a Supplementary Scottish Estimate. There was much talk in an earlier discussion about the Burnham Committee and complaints were made by some of those who represent certain classes. The Burnham Committee has always kept an eye on the salaries of teachers, and a standard was laid down for English teachers, but in Scotland there is a very strong feeling amongst all sections of teachers at the lack of consideration and understanding of the position of teachers. We set up machinery to deal with the salaries of teachers in Scotland and we ought to have something more definite from the Minister as to how that machinery is to work and when to expect a decision as to the salaries of teachers. When I am in my constituency or any other part of Scotland I am continually approached by teachers who want to know when they are to get something like proper treatment. In Scotland we have always had a higher standard of education than is general in England, but in England the teachers, for a poorer quality of education, get a higher salary than the teachers in Scotland.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the question of teachers' salaries. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) asked about the date of the operation of the Act and said that teachers were getting a bit restive in Scotland. Hon. Members will be aware that the Scottish Education Bill only became an Act on 15th June and since then we have had a general election. I am happy to say that immediately after my right hon. Friend was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland he prepared a scale for teachers and submitted his draft proposals to education authorities. It is provided in the Act that we should do so and we are empowered to give them 40 days in which to make representations to us. That has been done, and we have had many representations, and I am hopeful that, very soon now, the Regulations will be laid before this House and will be accepted. When they are accepted, I am happy to say that it will be possible for us—and this is our intention—to make

these scales retrospective to 1st April, 1945.
The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) asked if, out of this sum I was asking for this evening, it would be possible for us to give additional assistance to such areas as Argyllshire. It is because we propose to give some additional assistance to areas such as Argyllshire that I have had other representations made to me by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. I am sorry that I have not got all the figures which the hon. Member quoted, but the position is that the sum is apportioned, under the Education (Scotland) Grant Regulations, which have been laid and accepted, in accordance with a formula based on the numbers of pupils and teachers and the rateable value of the Education Authority's area. In this formula, we provide for giving adequate assistance to areas where we have a sparse population. It was not meeting their case merely to give them so much per teacher, and it is unfortunately true that, when the Secretary of State took the decision to give added assistance to those parts of the country where we have a sparse population and a very low rateable value, it had to be done at the expense of other areas. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire said his local authority is going to be very interested in this discrepancy, and in the difference in the amounts as apportioned, as compared with what was done under the general grant. The County Council of Dunbarton are as fully aware of the position as we can possibly make them. I myself had occasion the other day to write a very long letter to a Member of Parliament who had raised the matter on behalf of the Dunbartonshire County Council, and there I set out, in the greatest detail, the reasons for the formula that has been adopted under the grant regulations. In the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into and explain them in any great detail this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) made what is, I believe, his maiden speech this evening and I have to congratulate him upon it. We listened to it with interest, and, as I know full well that he is by way of being an expert in educational matters, we shall look forward to hearing him very often in future. Unhappily, I cannot give him


an explanation such as he sought in his very brief speech. I think he rather took us into the realm of the general grant than raised a matter with which I could appropriately deal in this Debate this evening. I am quite unable to give him the information he requires. I hope, however, that it will meet with his wishes if I forward this to him as soon as possible.
I do not think there were any other points raised this evening with which I could properly deal, and in the circumstances I hope I may now get the Estimate.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £568,975 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for public education in Scotland, including certain grants in aid of the Education (Scotland) Fund, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a grant in aid.

CLASS V

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £157,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, &amp;c., a grant in aid of the Highlands and Islands medical service; and other services.

10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): This Estimate arises from an Act passed last year. Older Members will remember that last year we passed an Act dealing with the re-distribution of industry and under which the Department of Health took over the obligations of the Commissioner for Special Areas (Scotland) under certain other Acts which were in force in Scotland. In the years before the war Scotland was, unfortunately, a distressed area and we had as the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition will remember because he took some active part in it, what was called the Special Areas legislation. When the Distribution of Industry Act was passed this legisla-

tion was wound up as the need for it had gone. Everybody was pleased, not with the war, but because it had brought to an end the old "special areas" as they were called. It was felt then that legislation ought to be passed, that this country ought to plan, if it could, to see that none of these things recurred, and so those charges were passed to be paid by the Department of Health. They were operated by the Scottish Special Housing Association in regard to housing. The first £80,000 is in regard to housing, and the second £75,000 is in regard to water supply. It is for those reasons that this Supplementary Estimate is required by us to-night.
The other Estimate is a comparatively small one of £2,000. Everyone on this Committee will agree, I am sure, that that is small. I would remind hon. Members who may be inclined to criticise that this Supplementary Estimate is required in part for girls who have been working during the war as V.A.D. nurses, or in factories as nurses, and who want to continue this profession, only in hospitals. It is not fair to the girls to knock down their salaries to practically nothing. This £2,000 is for the wages of the girls and for maintenance, and also to enable us to provide teaching staff at the hospitals, and I trust the Committee will approve the expenditure.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think all Members appreciate the short and lucid account which the hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee. I would like to ask a question about the Scottish Special Housing Association. What is that body doing now? I do not recollect the Under-secretary, when he was in Opposition, ever showing any particular enthusiasm for that body. But it may be that now, having entered the sombre portals of authority he has discovered something in this Association that may have escaped his notice before. I, too, have no special enthusiasm for this body, and it would be interesting to learn from the hon. Gentleman his impressions about it as he has now seen it from the inside. We gather that its purpose is to assist such local authorities as require assistance, to do such things as breaking builders'rings—an admirable purpose—but are they doing that? How many houses have they built during the last year, and what is their programme for this year?

Mr. McKinlay: I rise with some trepidation to point out to the Joint Under-secretary that I do not think that the Estimate he is asking for is sufficient for the purpose for which he requires it. I want to give the Committee a few reasons why. I am not surprised that we have already spent this money. It is nothing to what is coming. The Association have built a number of houses, and they are presumed to be the persons responsible. Two hundred houses were built and occupied by new tenants. In one, new ceilings 8 feet 6 inches high were fitted in the living room and in a bedroom. Money had to be paid for these alterations, and I think it is a waste of money trying to make uninhabitable houses habitable. Cupboards were taken out in one bedroom and put into another, which meant losing space. These houses, which were to Ministry of Works design were approved by the last Government, in which we had some members of our own Party.
In another house, coal fires were installed, entailing breaking down the wall of a separate bedroom and an exterior wall. I know something about prices in the building industry. Half-inch boarding was fitted on an outside wall. Remember, these were new houses. [An Hon. Member: "Where are they?"] They are scattered all over Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire to Dundee. They were built by the Special Housing Association, to Ministry of Works' specification. In another, there was renewal of the piping system in the fireplace and the boiler, and the roof was covered with tar and felt. These houses were inhabited by the young married persons and homeless couples. They were new. There was an opening ceremony, if I remember correctly, and Press photographers were there. There has been an army of plumbers there ever since.
After the tenants had got in, it was discovered that red, rusty water was coming into the house. I could go on for some time enumerating these items. This sum of £80,000 is to meet the special expenses of that Association. Then they insulated the houses. Whoever heard of anyone insulating a floor at the top instead of the bottom. They waited until the damp came, and then they covered up with a bitumen solution. There is no item here making provision for compensation to people for furniture destroyed or to grant

them remission in rents, because they have been paying rents for houses which they have been unable to occupy fully for over 18 months. This document from which I have been quoting is dated 26th June, 1945. I visited these houses last winter. The Under-Secretary visited them last winter as well, and he had to put rubber boots on inside the houses. This £80,000, I submit is wholly insufficient. I hope that the Under-Secretary is paying attention.

Mr. Buchanan: I am listening very intently.

Mr. McKinlay: I am trying to be serious. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that the whole of that sum will not be absorbed by the Special Housing Association making these new houses habitable for the tenants, who have had to put up with all these things for the best part of a year.

Commander Galbraith: I wish to put one question, in connection with the grants for the training of nurses. The Under-secretary spoke very eloquently of the need of nurses in Scotland, and we are all very much aware how short we are of members of the nursing profession. Is this £2,000 merely a token figure, or is it supposed to be sufficient to meet the provision of additional nurses for the remainder of the present financial year?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: A point which I want to raise with the Under-Secretary is with regard to this Special Housing Association. Is it to be the policy of the Scottish Office to force this association to do work in areas where the work could better be done by the people themselves? The case I have in mind is one in which, recently, the Joint Under-Secretary, along with members of the Glasgow Corporation, decided to build a number of houses in the Glasgow area. Everyone knows that before the Special Housing Association can build any houses in Glasgow, it has to compete with the corporation itself and the contractors, both for the local labour supply and for priorities in materials. If it is the purpose of the Special Housing Association to do work and help councils when they are having difficulty, why does the Scottish Office


bring it into a city where the work can be done far better than the Association can do it?

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: In the Housing Vote reference is made to a grant of £2,000 to the Second Scottish National Housing Company. The Committee is not very well acquainted with that body. Perhaps the Joint Under-secretary would say a word on its constitution and what work it has undertaken.

Mr. McAllister: If the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) is correct in assuming that the £80,000 is for the repair of these Association houses, is my hon. Friend satisfied that £80,000 is sufficient to repair these perfectly appalling houses, which have caused indescribable hardship and inconvenience to the tenants from the moment they were built until to-day, and whether he does not think that the only possible solution is to scrap these houses and build completely new houses for the tenants?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Since there is reference in the Vote to a grant in aid of the Highlands and Islands medical service, I would like to ask my hon. Friend what changes, if any—

Mr. Buchanan: That is not in my Estimate.

Mr. MacMillan: I can assure my hon. Friend it is in the Estimate. We are so accustomed to the Highlands and Islands being ignored, that I tend to agree with something which I can translate from the rugged English of the infantry as follows "I am not unduly perturbed by your difficulty, Jock." I am all right.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The item to which the hon. Member refers occurs under another Sub-head.

Mr. MacMillan: The Estimate refers to
a grant in aid of the Highlands and Islands medical service.

Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend is reading from the heading. If he will turn to the next page, he will see that there is no Supplementary Estimate to cover that item. It does not relate to the particular headings under discussion.

Mr. MacMillan: This question I am raising came under the general heading—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is out of Order.

Sir William Darling: I am interested in the Scottish Special Housing Association. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will bring his astute and original mind to bear on its history. I shall not attempt to blame the present Government for that Association. They did not inaugurate it; they have inherited it and also some lessons that go with it. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) indicated quite clearly some of the lessons. Perhaps I may be permitted to take the matter a little further. What is the Scottish Special Housing Association Ltd.? I can tell one or two things which are perhaps not within the knowledge of the Committee. I am told on the authority of the City Treasurer of Edinburgh that they built seven houses in Edinburgh, and that all these are occupied by officials of the Association—a practical contribution, no doubt, but a limited one, to the urgent housing needs of the city of Edinburgh.
I notice that when Government Departments want important officials to conduct their business, they have little respect for Governmental institutions. After much advertising for a secretary and manager for the Scottish Housing Association, they secured a very distinguished and able man. He did not remain with them for long. He did not have to go to the employment exchange for another job. He left to join the Association of Paint Manufacturers. This Committee is being asked to pay for an unfortunate experiment in State erection of houses. We have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite how scandalous this experiment has been, and that it has produced houses, which although not three years old are untenantable—that the Under-Secretary has to use waterproof boots to enter them. It is a scandal arising out of the attempt by a collectivist organisation to build houses. The truth is that Governments cannot build houses, nor can local authorities; official associations cannot build houses. That is an unsuitable economic tool for the purpose you have got in mind. I want the Under-Secretary to bring to bear an original mind and a mind which is not likely to be overburdened by the fact


that nine-tenths of the gentlemen with whom he sits are not Scotsmen. I hope he will assert that character which is his inalienable right, because Government and local authority have alike failed where they have tried. The shortage of houses is due to the fact that you are attempting to build houses with a device which is as useful for the purpose as a shovel would be to stir a cup of tea. This Vote is the first instalment of many proofs of that fact which this Committee will receive, if we continue to build by other than free enterprise.

Mr. MacMillan: May I refer to a point of Order, raised earlier, Major Milner? I would like, with your permission, to have some explanation of what is included under the Supplementary Estimate.

The Chairman: The heading to which the hon. Member has referred is the heading in the original Estimate, and the items in the Supplementary Estimate to the original Estimate are set out below. The subject of the Highlands and Islands is not among these items. The question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. MacMillan: With respect, I would have thought that the question does arise. In the original Estimate no provision has been made for this matter.

The Chairman: That question does not arise here. The only matters before the Committee are the five items set out in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Gallacher: It has been interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman condemn the attempt of the associations to build houses or to build anything else. I hope he will apply that condemnation to the companies who call themselves limited companies and the big monopoly companies, and get rid of them all, and then maybe the people will get a chance to obtain homes and happiness for themselves. The fact remains that the local authorities have the responsibility for putting right the harm that has been done, and the money should be given to the local authorities and not to the Government.
The point I wish to make is in connection with nursing. There is no question that is of greater moment to the people of Scotland from the point of view of health than nursing. We have in Scot-

land the highest incidence of tuberculosis compared with any other part of the country, and I want to know if this Estimate of £2,000 covers a scheme of training which the Scottish Office introduced in connection with tuberculosis—a scheme of training that was to a large extent valueless. It was a voluntary nursing scheme whereby nurses went voluntarily into the sanatoria for three months, and at the end of that period they could either carry on or leave. In many of the sanatoria which I visited I found that when the nurses came in the small staff had the added work of training them and getting them to understand the job, and at the end of three months when they did understand the job they finished and went out. I do not suppose that scheme is still being carried on.

Mr. Buchanan: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, this £2,000 does not cover that. It covers a limited number of people who are known as sister tutors.

Mr. Gallacher: I understand that it has nothing to do with the whole field of nursing and that it is for a particular type of nursing. I know that otherwise the sum involved would be much greater. I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman knows whether the scheme of three months in the sanatorium is still being carried on. Anything which will develop nursing in Scotland would be of the greatest value.

Mr. Timmins: I would ask my hon. Friend whether before spending any money in trying to improve certain houses in Western Scotland, he would consider pulling them down and replacing them with some other houses.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Uninformed views have been expressed about the Scottish Housing Association. I want to speak on the rather intriguing point made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) who wanted to know why the Association found it necessary to do certain things. I would like to take that matter a little further, because the views behind the speech seemed to be that local authorities should place in their houses people who have the greatest need. I welcome that suggestion, and I hope it may be expanded to private house factors and others, so that in every case


where a private concern has built houses it should submit the newly-built houses to be occupied by people with the greatest needs.
With regard to the remarks which have been bandied about as to the type of house built by the Scottish Housing Association, the houses were built over a period when there was great need for them and when people were taken from one part of the country to another to do vital work during the war. The material of which these houses were built was not up to the standard which the Association desired, but in view of the desirability of building the houses as quickly as possible the houses were allowed to go up.

Sir W. Darling: Question.

Mr. Robertson: The Association has a great contribution to make towards satisfying the housing needs of the people of Scotland, which wants something like 10,000 houses a year. I am surprised that hon. Members should not encourage this Association to go on to deal with this very vital problem and assist local authorities, where necessary and important to do so.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I have been asked a number of questions on this Estimate. I would like to deal first with the question originally raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). This is a small payment for a very limited body of tutor nurses and of women who train as nurses at the end of their war work. A special need arose, and we felt that some maintenance grant as well as the training ought to be provided, and the Committee may take it that it in no way covers a very wide field. In answer to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), this Estimate does not cover the question of tuberculosis. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise it with me privately, as I cannot be expected to cover every field of activity in my speech to-night. I depend a great deal on advice and help from hon. Members in this Committee and if the hon. Member feels that there is an issue here, I shall not be averse from examining that issue.

Sir W. Darling: Can the Minister tell us how many nurses are to be paid for by the £2,000?

Mr. Buchanan: It is an augmentation, and, as I say, covers a very limited field.

Sir W. Darling: If there are 10 nurses, that is £200 each—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend is a very active Member but he must learn to conduct himself in the same way as he would like a member of Edinburgh Town Council to conduct himself. I turn to the general question of the Housing Association. I anticipate it will be raised to-morrow when, I understand, we are to have a housing Debate. I think that in fairness to the critics it would be better to discuss it to-morrow. I do not want to burke the issue, and rather than deal with it in a limited manner, I would prefer to cover the whole ambit of it and face up to the criticisms then.
The hon. Member for Pollok and the hon. Member for West Fife raised the matter with me in very pungent letters and I think one of them, at least, may be fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye and raise the issue tomorrow and then I would deal with the whole question of the Housing Association.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What the Minister is really saying is that he proposes at the end of to-morrow's Debate to reply to criticism. What I did ask him to do to-night was to make some criticism.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member is an adroit Parliamentarian and in my more simple days, I was indebted to him for much help and assistance, having regard to my lack of knowledge on these matters. So far as I am concerned, I am in rather an awkward position in regard to this matter of the Housing Association as I do not want to debate it on a Supplementary Estimate. To say that my relationship with the Association is altogether happy would be wrong, and to say that I am antagonistic to the body would be equally wrong. I have to face the facts. I will look at them to see how I can fit the Association in to the housing programme of Scotland and to the


beliefs I have held all my life. To-morrow I intend to say a word about this.
The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) asked why the Maycrete houses have been built. It would be very difficult to place the blame here or there, but I will give the facts as I see them. I had no responsibility for the building of these houses. One might have thought from the speeches that I had, but they had all been built when I took office. They were built in the middle of the war. Mr. Thomas Johnston was the Secretary for Scotland, and in fairness to him, I must say he has seen Scotland as I have seen it, and its need for houses. He had little material and little labour. These houses were offered to him as a way out of the dilemma, since he could build them with a minimum of labour and material. He being a reformer, he did what most of us would have done—he went in for the adventure. I would sooner see a Secretary of State for Scotland make a mistake in an adventure than not make any attempt at all. The right hon. Gentleman went into it and the Scottish Housing Association ought not to be allowed to take all the blame. They have done good work, and all along they said they were not the best of houses. On the other hand, we were anxious to improve the Scottish housing position, and we asked them to go ahead. There has also been some criticism about the Ministry of Works. They built some houses directly, and so far as I am aware there has been no real material complaint against them. I was not satisfied when I took office and I confess I have expressed my views about the matter in a forthright manner. But looking at the facts I confess I do not blame the late Secretary of State. He took a decision which in all the circumstances, I am sure I should have taken had I been in his position. It is a tragic story.
With reference to the position of the tenants I have examined this issue with a good deal of sympathy. Certain formulae have already been examined and discussions started. I am not quite satisfied that the tenants are being properly treated in all the matters concerned. It may well be that they were adequately treated in the matter of rent, but there are other questions. There may have been damage to furniture, the family might be forced to stay away, and

for these reasons I have been looking at the question of compensation. Only to-day my officials discussed with Treasury officials whether something could be done. I hope in a few weeks' time if hon. Members will put questions, to be in a position not to announce a solution of this problem, which is beyond me and would require someone cleverer than I am, to solve, but to announce something that will partially satisfy the tenants. This Housing Association question will be considered in the light of future events. I propose to give it reconsideration and see how I can improve the Association. I do not intend to disband the Association, but I intend to improve it. It has had valuable experience, and a machine like that should not be smashed, but should be remodelled. I propose to try to fit it in with what I think are the national requirements. I make this last plea to Members. There has been the case of this unfortunate house which has been built. Do not let us stop in the adventure of house building because of that. It has been an unfortunate thing, but if Scotland is to solve its housing problem, a great and human problem, risks will have to be taken. I hope nobody will be blamed because he has the courage to take them.

Mr. Scollan: May I ask why the hon. Gentleman does not reply to the question I asked him?

Mr. Buchanan: I will answer, though this really should come up to-morrow.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. It will not be in Order to discuss Scottish Office policy on the housing Debate to-morrow.

Mr. Buchanan: Oh, yes. Hon. Members will find I am replying to it to-morrow. For the guidance of hon. Members, the Motion to-morrow will be so wide—and quite fairly so—as not to limit anybody in saying anything on housing.
About Glasgow, let me say this. Again, this raises a danger of going outside this Estimate. It does not really come within the discussion of the estimate. I will try to keep within it as best I can.

The Chairman: Does it deal with this housing?

Mr. Buchanan: Yes. I will do my best to keep in Order. The Housing Association cannot build houses in Edinburgh. I wish the hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Edinburgh, who is so distinguished a citizen, would know a little more about his city. These are the facts. The Housing Association cannot build houses in Edinburgh. But one of the purposes of the Association is to build demonstration houses. If you want to build demonstration houses you must have a site people can get to. Demonstration houses were built in Edinburgh because, taking Scotland as a whole, it was the most central site they could get for that purpose. That is the answer.

Sir W. Darling: The Minister is unintentionally misleading the Committee. Those are not the facts.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt unless the Minister gives way.

Mr. Buchanan: The facts are that the Association cannot build a single house in Edinburgh. The Housing Association are limited to building to a definite form, and Edinburgh does not comply with that. The hon. Member condemns this Association—

Sir W. Darling: No.

Mr. Buchanan: I thought the hon. Member did. I will not proceed with that if I took him up wrongly. About the position at Glasgow, the Association cannot build houses without the consent of the local authority in the district in which they wish to build. If Glasgow does not want this Association all Glasgow has to say is "No." In recent negotiations, Glasgow, which, whatever the faults there, is active in housing, discussed with this Housing Association another contract I should not be in order in discussing here, and are going to allow the building of houses in the city. The corporation have accepted that point of view. I hope the Association's relations with Glasgow will improve. I think they can be mutually helpful in solving the housing problem.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: May I inquire about the Second Scottish National Housing Company and whether it is different from the Scottish Special Housing Association?

Mr. Buchanan: Its functions are now finished and it now manages houses built under what we might call the Baldwin régime—steel houses. The Special Housing Association was formed at a later stage and I have given instructions to this Special Housing Association that the two associations ought at once to unite, because there is now no reason why two bodies should be functioning separately. Discussions are now going on to allow the two bodies to function together.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding, £157,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, etc., a grant in aid of the Highlands and Islands medical service; and other services.

CLASS VI

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £96,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, and research, agricultural marketing, agricultural credits, expenses in respect of regulation of agricultural wages, management and use of land acquired for forestry, agricultural training and settlement schemes, certain grants in aid and remanet subsidy payments.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The £96,000 we are asking for falls under several heads. We are asking for the sum of £50,000 to meet a proportion of the cost for the improvement of agricultural land by drainage. I make bold to say that a good job of work has been done during the war in the way of draining land for agricultural purposes and it is as a result of that that we need this extra sum of money. We also want a sum of £12,000 for the establishment and maintenance of an agricultural machinery station for the testing of agricultural machinery. I venture to suggest that the agricultural community will welcome this provision. We furthermore want £20,000 for a grant in aid to the Scottish Women's Land Army Welfare


and Benevolent Fund. On 16th May last, I believe, the Government's intention to make this contribution was announced to the House. We further want a sum of £20,000, less £10, to meet the expense of managing and using land acquired by the Secretary of State under the Forestry Act of 1945 and not yet placed at the disposal of the Forestry Commissioners. A further sum of £5,000 is required for the re-settlement in agriculture and horticulture of persons released from the Services and for the re-settlement in agriculture and horticulture of persons disabled by war service. This seems to be a very creditable venture on our part.

Mr. Snadden(Perth and Kinross, Western): I do not want to detain the Committee long. I welcome the large increase on the original Estimate, but I am a little concerned, looking ahead, in regard to the supply of suitable machinery to carry out land drainage. I wonder if the Under-Secretary, whom I congratulate on the way he has dealt with this matter to-night, can give us a little more information in regard to the acreage covered by this sum; and also if he can tell us what proportion is due to hill-drainage, and what proportion is due to arable land.
I would also like to ask him whether the Balfour Report will be turned into legislation and in order to carry it out will he acquire certain equipment, not easily obtainable, in the form of tractors for hill drainage? I am told that in Scotland the Canadian Forestry Corps has a large number of these particular machines, and they are going to waste. I wonder if the Under-Secretary can tell me whether, in the £50,000 referred to in the Estimate, any provision is made for the purchase of this type of tractor, which will be needed in the Western Highlands if we are to overcome the drainage problem there. I shall be glad if he can tell these people that this type of machinery, which is necessary to carry out hill-drainage, is going to be taken over by the Department of Agriculture from the Ministry of Supply; and, if any of the money in the estimate is earmarked for that part of the scheme.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: None of us wants to keep the Committee late, but owing to the congestion of business, it is very seldom that we Scottish Members

have a chance of discussing Scottish affairs. We would be failing in our duty to our constituents if we did not take this opportunity of asking questions and extracting from the Government statements of interest to our country. I want to ask a question on Subheads "R" and "S." Subhead "R" refers to the new Forestry Act under which the Secretary of State for the first time becomes responsible for land for use for forestry in Scotland. How much land is involved here? The Estimate says it is land which is acquired by the Secretary of State and not placed at the disposal of the Forestry Commission. What land is it? How much is it? That is the problem.
As regards Sub-head "S" which relates to settlement grants, how many men or families are concerned here? The sum is only £5,000, and I cannot conceive that many families can have been settled with such a small figure as that. One knows from all the records that the demand for small holdings, agricultural and horticultural, is exceedingly great. It amounts to many thousands. On the records of the Scottish Office, thousands of people have put in demands and will the Secretary of State tell the country what is the position in regard to land settlement here.

Mr. Malcolm MacMilian: I would like to press the Under-Secretary for a statement with regard to land settlement, as it seems to be that the release of men from the forces is out of all proportion to the increased sum provided under this Supplementary Estimate. I cannot imagine that it will meet the demands from the very large number of men requiring small holdings. This affects our part of Northern Scotland and the Islands very directly, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to do us the courtesy on this occasion of paying some attention to the claims and inquiries about our part of Scotland. There is one other point. I would like to know whether it is possible for him to give us an idea of what proportion of the Supplementary Estimate is to be spent in the Highlands and Islands area. Land drainage is very important from the point of view of the reclamation of land for the purpose of assisting us with the resettlement of these men coming back from the Forces who are referred to under Subhead S. If he can give us some guidance on these points I think the Highlands would be very grateful.

Major McCallum: This is an opportunity which we Scottish Members must take, to try to obtain information about our own country. It has been, more or less, an unwritten law in this House that if English Members on these occasions do not like the subjects or speeches or are bored, they need not necessarily listen to them. I would like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary this question about operations under the Forestry Act. There is a £20,000 Supplementary Estimate for them and a £10 receipt he has mentioned for money coming back to the Government. Does that £10 represent all that is coming back to the Government for forestry land maintained as agricultural land under the Department of Agriculture? I know a farm in my own constituency bought in 1945 where surely the revenue is more than £10. Really, the West Highlands are becoming rather suspicious of these establishments run by the Department. We had a lamentable spectacle the other day of land sold at—

The Chairman (Major Milner): I ought to point out that the item to which the hon. and gallant Member refers comes under appropriations in aid.

Major McCallum: I want to elicit whether this £10 is all that has been received as revenue from this type of land.

Mr. Gallacher: We always get these Estimates for Scotland introduced at the last minute. There are very important matters here for Scotland. When we consider the first item in the Estimate for land drainage, we are faced with the fact that all kinds of Sassenachs are coming and buying Scottish land. I want to know—it is a question which has been concerning Scottish people quite a lot, and if I talk about Scottish people I know what I am talking about—I want to know if some of this money is being spent on drainage for land for agricultural purposes and if the land is sold to some of the companies which are buying up Scottish land at the present time and using it for other purposes than agriculture. That is going on at present.

Mr. Snadden: Where is that going on?

Mr. Gallacher: It has been going on quite a lot in Scotland. The original thief sells the land to a fellow conspirator South of the Border and it be-

comes a legal transaction. The fact remains that the land was stolen. What I want to know from the Minister is that the money is spent for draining for agricultural purposes, and that the land so drained cannot be sold to these companies from the South for use for other purposes.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to keep his remarks relevant to the Vote before the Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: I have been relevant all along or if I have been irrelevant I wish you, Major Milner, could advise me. No one is more ready than I am to take advice from the Chair, and no one gives more attention to the Chair than I do. However, I want to ask the Minister also whether this grant is concerned with agricultural machinery and if that machinery will be available all over Scotland for supply to the farmers—

The Chairman: That question certainly does not appear to arise on the Vote.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: There is also the important question of afforestation. It is one of the most important developments in the Highlands of Scotland. There are several schemes of afforestation and money could not be better spent than in repairing some of the terrible damage that has been done to the Highlands. Is any of this expenditure to be used to help families engaged in forestry work, and to give them amenities. They are tucked away in the Highlands far away from shopping centres. Is this money to be used to supply such amenities? The Minister must know as well as I do that many of these people in charge of afforestation have long distances to travel with very indifferent bus services.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has had a great deal of latitude. This is not really relevant to the question of managing and using land.

Mr. Gallacher: The Under-Secretary is not managing the land. He has somebody there managing it. What amenities is he supplying? How is he treating them? Is he giving them proper housing and the recognised proper conveniences? How are they getting on for clothing, food, and all the rest of it? That is important.


It is unfortunate that only at this late hour, when everybody wants to get away, and I want to get away, we should have to discuss these questions about Scotland. We ought to have a chance of discussing the management of these areas, and the conditions under which those who are managing them are being employed. There are many more matters I could deal with, on these Estimates, but it is quite obvious I have worn out my welcome.

Mr. Steele: There is one point I wish to raise. In connection with the settlement grants for the re-settlement in agriculture and horticulture of men and women released from war service, I am rather perturbed in connection with this because I have some knowledge of what has happened to men given smallholdings in Scotland, and I would like some information as to how this money is to be spent. I would like to know whether any grant made to these men who are coming back from the Forces will give them a reasonable assurance of being able to make a real livelihood.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Several hon. Members have raised points and, of course, they are perfectly entitled to do so, and I will do my best to reply to them all, but I am afraid I shall not be able to give complete satisfaction to all hon. Members who have raised points. The question of drainage was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who asked if I could tell him the relative acreage of hill land and arable land we want to drain with this money. I am afraid I cannot give him the figure for the hill land as against the arable land. I will do my best to get whatever information I can for him, but I, perhaps wrongly, had not foreseen I would be asked to supply this information this evening. He also asked me if we would be supplying the best kind of machinery for this job. As he is aware, the Department of Agriculture do provide machinery at the present moment of various types. We do supply many different implements at our various stations up and down the country. Of course the supply of machinery must, inevitably, be included, although I would call attention to the fact that this is rather a limited grant, and if I should allow myself to be drawn into discussion I might commit the error of saying that we were doing something that we do not

propose to do at all. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) asked me if we were draining land and then selling it back to private interests to be used for purposes other than agriculture. The answer is in the negative. We are not doing any such thing. He also asked if we had machinery stations. Of course we have machinery stations up and down the country, but these are not provided for under the Estimate. That provides for a testing station. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked me some questions about forestry land.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he could give any idea of the area of the land concerned.

Mr. Fraser: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend that information this evening, but I will see that he gets the information as soon as I can have it looked up for him. He and several other hon. Members raised the question of resettlement grants and said this seemed altogether too small a sum to do very much in re-settling in agriculture and horticulture men who were coming back from the Services. Several hon. Members also mentioned smallholdings, but the present Government have not stated their policy so far as smallholdings are concerned. We have not said yet whether there is going to be a great extension of smallholdings or not, but in any case it will be appreciated that little or nothing can be done at the moment in the way of providing smallholdings. We have had I do not know how many applications for smallholdings. The point is that we are not asking for a sum of money this evening to permit of going forward with a bold scheme of land settlement. Nothing of the kind. We are asking only for the sum of £5,000 to enable us to assist in resettling in agriculture and horticulture men and women who are at the moment in His Majesty's Forces. Part of the money will be spent in training men and women to put them back into agriculture. Some of it will be necessary to enable us to re-settle them in holdings, but it is very seldom nowadays that a holding falls vacant. The cost of settling new smallholders in existing smallholdings is not considerable and we should not complain about that. This amount for which we are asking for Settlement Grants is a very limited thing. I ask hon. Members to


bear in mind that we are not dealing with the broad general question of opening up small holdings in a planned settlement scheme.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is this for?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: I have said we must have a certain amount of money to enable us to train workers—ex-Service men and ex-Service women—for resettlement in agriculture and horticulture.

Commander Galbraith: May I just put a question? Is it not the fact that this sum is to enable the Government to give a grant of £150 which is available to set up people in business, or people going into agriculture? Is not that the point? That was what was explained, I understand, previously, when the same item came up under the English Estimate.

Mr. Fraser: That is one of the ways in which we shall assist ex-Service men and women when they come back to agriculture and I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for assisting me to clarify the matter.

Mr. Scollan: I am still rather vague with regard to this sum for training people to go back on the land. If it is the policy simply to replace someone who has left a smallholding I want to be clear about it. Does it mean that the Government are settling them on new smallholdings, or old smallholdings? What is it for?

Mr. Fraser: I think I have said already that we have no new smallholdings.

Mr. Gallacher: What are they being trained for? What do the Government want the £50,000 for?

Mr. Fraser: We have no new smallholdings. Everyone knows what we are giving them the £150 for. Everyone knows why we are giving a blacksmith £150 when he comes out of the Services—to set him up in his own industry. We are doing the same thing in agriculture. It is, I think, a grateful thing for this or any other Government to do.
There were not many other points which were raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for West Fife did ask me, with regard to forestry, if we were taking into

consideration the needs of the forestry workers. Of course we are taking into consideration the needs of the forestry workers, but again we are not having a Debate this evening on forestry in general. We are just asking for this extra money which is required for the use and management of land we have acquired for forestry purposes and which has not been given up to the Forestry Commissioners. We are very much alive to the need for all possible amenities for these workers, but it is not particularly easy at this time to get houses built for forestry workers, just as it is not easy at this time to plan a very ambitious programme of house-building for any other workers. At least one can plan, but one cannot hope to be very successful in the course of a few months. This is only a supplementary grant that we are asking for to enable us to manage the land.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £96,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education and research, agricultural marketing, agricultural credits, expenses in respect of regulation of agricultural wages, management and use of land acquired for forestry, agricultural training and settlement schemes, certain grants in aid and remanet subsidy payments.

CLASS VII

MISCELLANEOUS WORKS SERVICES

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous works services, including certain new works and buildings, historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery, certain housing estates and certain grants in aid.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £180,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas.

Mr. Driberg: I hope my right hon. Friend who is in charge of this Estimate will be able to throw a little light


on one item in it. Under Subhead A, relating to "New Works," Item 6 is "the acquisition of additional land adjoining the Embassy in Athens," which is going to cost us £39,000. This is the most expensive of all the items listed under this Subhead and comparison with the other items show that it is not for works to be done or buildings to be built or anything like that but simply for the acquisition of additional land. A sum of £39,000 seems to be quite a lot of money to pay for a bit of land in Athens at this moment. Somebody must be making quite a good thing out of it. We do not want unreasonably large sums of our public money to be poured into the pockets of Greek landowners and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will be able to throw just a little light on this point.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): I had hoped that on this, the last Vote to be taken to-night, I would have received the very modest amounts we are asking for, almost without question and answer. It is true that the amount asked for under Item 6, Subhead A, deals with the acquisition of additional land adjoining the Embassy in Athens. Our information is that it is necessary to acquire this land, in order that the amenities of the Embassy and the dignity of our station there may be upheld. It is true that the land appears to be dear, but there are other places where land acquired in order to maintain amenities is dear also. I can assure the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that I have looked into this item carefully and if this land could be obtained for less money we would do so.

Mr. Eden: I hope the Minister is not going to complain if we comment a little on these figures, which show a very high increase on the original figure—something like 15 per cent. Personally, I welcome the increase very much and the only object I have in intervening is to say so. I welcome it with the more enthusiasm because I think I am responsible for a good deal of it myself, but not in regard to the land at Athens. I am conscious that the office buildings at Athens, as at many Embassies abroad, are quite inadequate by modern standards and if this sum is for construction of new offices in Athens, where they are at present underground,

it is high time it was done. This work of the present Ministry and their predecessors is worthy and I hope they will maintain similar standards elsewhere. I hope some day to have the opportunity of saying the same thing about the Foreign Office itself.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, the sum of £2,008,464,608 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

INDIAN FRANCHISE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

INDIAN DIVORCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Clause I.—(Certain proceedings in High Court of Bombay to be valid.)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.30 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask whether the Minister could give me an assurance about the point which I raised when the Bill came up previously, on the question of the notification given on these occasions? Could he give any further explanation why previous notification is not understood by those practising at the bar of the Indian High Court?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I do not think I can add anything to what was said on the last occasion except that notification was done by reference, and, for some reason


or another, those concerned did not take the trouble to probe into the details contained in the notification. I am quite sure due attention will be paid to the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman made on Second Reading.

Mr. Butler: Can we have an assurance that those concerned will take due note that we have passed this Bill with such care in the Imperial Parliament?

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that due attention will be paid to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to substitute for the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943, a

system of insurance against personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of a person's employment and against prescribed diseases and injuries due to the nature of a person's employment and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(a) contributions towards the cost of benefit payable under the said Act and any other payments to be made out of the Indus trial Injuries Fund established there under, being contributions not exceeding sums estimated by the Treasury to be equal to one-fifth of the aggregate contributions paid under the said Act by employers and insured persons;
(b) such other sums as may be required for making any payments (not being payments in respect of the cost of such benefit as aforesaid or other payments required by the said Act to be made out of the said Fund) which are authorised or required by the said Act to be made by the Minister of National Insurance or any other Government department."

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock